* 


O  miNCETON,  N.  J.  ^h 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


BV  600  .A5  T46  1851 
Thompson,  Matthew  La  Rue 
Perrine,  b.  1809. 
The  church,  its  ministry  and 


CyUrt  .£,/- 


THE  CHURCH,  i' 


MINISTEY  AND  WORSHIP; 


A    REPLY 

TO  THE   RECENT  WORK   OF   REV.  MONTGOMERY  SCHUYLER,  A.  M., 
ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT. 


BY  M.  LA  RUE  P.^THOMPSO^, 

PASTOR     OF     THE     FIRST     PRESBYTERIAN     CHURCH     OF     BUFFALO,     N.    Y. 


He  that  is  finst  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  jiiRt;    but  his  neighbor  coineth  and 
searcheth  him. — Prov.  viii  :  17. 


BUFFALO 


T.  AND  M.  BUTLER,  PUBLISHERS^ 

No.  159  Main  Street. 

1851 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1851,  by 

T.    &   M.    BUTLER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Northern 

District  of  New  York. 


STEAM   PRESS    OF   JEWETT,  THOMAS  &  CO. 
COMMERCIAL    ADVERTISER    OFFICE, 
BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 


To  the  members  of  the  several  Presbyterian  chm-ches  and 
congregations  in  the  city  of  Buffalo,  and  to  all  others  who  love 
the  primitive  and  apostolic  simplicity  of  Christian  order  and 
worship,  the  following  pages  are  respectfully  dedicated  by 

Their  sincere  friend, 

THE  AUTHOR. 
Buffalo,  May,  1851. 


riii  JCEITOIT 


riECJUN  188 

TIIEOLOGICi^ 


THE  CHURCH, 


MINISTEY  AND  WORSHIP 


The  general  character  and  design  of  this  vokime  may  be 
understood  from  the  title  page.  It  is  necessary  only  to  remark, 
that  by  "the  church"  is  not  meant  the  Episcopal  church, 
nor  the  Presbyterian  church,  nor  any  church  of  a  sect,  but 
the  church  of  Christ.  The  term  is  used  in  its  general  and 
catholic  sense. 

It  has  been  the  author's  aim,  in  opposition  to  the  erroneous 
statements  and  incorrect  reasonings  of  the  book  which  he 
reviews,  to  present  and  defend  the  true  scripture  doctrine  con- 
cerning "  the  church,  its  ministry  and  worship."  He  trusts  that 
nothing  will  be  found  upon  his  pages  unbecoming  the  serious 
and  important  theme  which  he  has  in  hand.  Toward  the  gen- 
tleman who  occupies  the  position  of  an  opponent,  he  entertains 
no  other  feelings  than  those  of  kindness,  and  would  deeply 
regret  the  cause,  whatever  it  might  be,  that  should  serve  to  inter- 
rupt the  pleasant  neighborly  intercourse  with  him,  which  he 
has  hitherto  enjoyed.  He  can  truly  say  that  no  offense  was 
taken  at  the  freedom  of  that  gentleman's  strictures  on  his  ser- 
mon, and  he  feels  confident  that  none  will  be  given  by  the 
exercise  of  a  similar  freedom  in  return. 

Some  apology  is  due  for  the  size  of  this  book.  Nothing  of 
the  kind  was  intended  by  the  author  when  he  began  to  write. 


6  THE   CHURCH, 

The  two  most  common  excuses  for  all  wrong  doing  may  be 
most  truthfully  urged  by  him.  He  did  n't  mean  it,  and  could  n't 
help  it.  It  can  easily  be  understood  how  an  error  may  be  stated 
in  few  words,  which  will  require  pages  to  be  written  for  its 
adequate  refutation.  Besides,  to  make  a  small  book  on  a  great 
theme,  demands  an  amount  of  leisure,  which,  those  who  are 
familiar  with  the  author's  circumstances,  well  know  he  could 
not  command. 

He  offers  his  work  to  the  public  with  diffidence,  as  the  result 
of  hurried  labor,  under  the  pressure  of  many  more  important 
duties,  persuaded,  nevertheless,  that  it  will  be  found  not  wholly 
unworthy  of  that  careful  perusal  which  he  bespeaks  for  it. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  by  way  of  explanation  to  those  who 
looked  for  the  appearance  of  this  volume  at  an  earlier  date,  that 
it  was  substantially  written,  and  ready  for  the  press,  eight  months 
ago ;  and  would  have  been  issued  at  that  time  but  for  the  infirm 
state  of  the  author's  health,  which  interrupted  all  his  labors,  and 
for  a  large  portion  of  the  winter  rendered  it  necessary  for  him 
to  seek  recovery  at  a  distance  from  his  city  and  home. 


AN  UNJUST  ACCUSATION. 

Mr.  Schuyler  says,  in  his  preface,  that  the  lectures  of  which 
his  book  is  mainly  composed,  were  called  forth  by  my  sermon 
on  the  office  of  a  bishop,  "  in  which  a  most  reckless  attack  was 
made  upon  Episcopacy,  with  an  abundance  of  bold  assertions, 
advanced  with  all  the  confidence  of  argument."  In  regard  to 
what  is  intimated  in  the  latter  part  of  this  sentence,  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  readers  of  the  sermon  are  fully  capable  of  form- 
ing their  own  opinions.  But  I  am  charged  with  having  made 
"a  most  reckless  attack  upon  Episcopacy."  It  seems  to  be 
imphed  by  this,  that  the  controversial  aspect  of  my  sermon  was 
unprovoked.  An  uninformed  person  would  surely  imagine 
from  the  manner  in  which  the  charge  is  brought,  that  in  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  7 

midst  of  profound  peace,  witli  nothing-  going  before  to  justify 
me,  I  had  suddenly  broken  forth  in  a  violent  assault  upon  the 
Episcopal  church.  Was  it  really  so  ?  Did  my  accuser  quite 
forget  the  book  on  "  The  Three  Reformations,"  edited  by  the 
Reverend  Dr.  Shelton,  and  published  just  previous  to  the  de- 
livery of  my  sermon,  with  a  preface  full  of  the  worst  kind  of 
Episcopal  assumptions,  and  the  most  insulting  insinuations 
against  all  other  bodies  of  professing  christians  ? 

I  have  no  fondness  for  controverey ;  and  never,  I  trust,  shall 
be  found  recklessly  provoking  it.  I  challenge  all  who  know 
me,  to  say  if  I  am  disposed  to  be  quarrelsome.  Nothing  would 
be  so  grateful  to  my  feelings,  as  to  be  in  actual  and  visible 
fraternal  concord  with  all  good  men.  My  soul  longs  for  the 
establishment  of  a  true  and  loving  brotherhood  among  all 
those  who,  under  different  sectional  names,  profess  the  common 
faith  and  common  hope  of  the  Gospel ;  and  in  all  the  glorious 
future  revealed  in  the  promises  of  God  to  his  people,  my  eye 
sees  nothing  that  more  affects  and  delights  my  heart  'No 
prayer  do  I  offer  more  fervently,  than  for  the  speedy  coming  of 
that  day,  which  is  destined  to  witness,  not  the  abolition  of  sects, 
but  of  sectarian  jealousies  and  strifes,  and  the  honest,  warai- 
hearted,  whole-hearted  co-operation  of  all  Christ's  friends  in 
extending  and  establishing  his  kingdom. 

"A  most  reckless  attack  upon  Episcopacy!"  Look  at  it. 
Here  is  a  sect  styHng  itself  "  the  church,''^  arrogating  all  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  church  of  God  on  earth,  with 
the  exception  of  that  degree  of  participation  vdth  itself  to 
which  it  admits  the  Romish  and  Greek  churches,  denouncing 
all  besides  as  heretics  and  schism^atics,  without  church,  minis- 
try, or  sacraments ;  teaching  this  in  its  formularies,  and  proclaim- 
ing it  ceaselessly  from  its  pulpits  and  its  presses ;  and  when  a 
word  is  spoken  by  one  of  another  sect  against  such  assumptions, 
it  is  "  a  most  reckless  attack  upon  Episcopacy ! " 

A  Presbyterian  minister,  at  a  Presbyterian  ordination,  in  a 
Presbyterian  pulpit^  to  a  Presbyterian  congregation,  preaches  a 


8  THE  CHURCH, 

sermon  to  sliow  the  true  scriptural  character  of  a  Presbyterian 
bishop,  and  lo !  it  is  "a  most  reckless  attack  upon  Episcopacy !" 

That  sermon  is  printed,  and  the  occasion  is  taken  for  review- 
ing, in  an  appendix,  a  recent  Episcopal  pubhcation,  in  which 
are  exhibited  all  the  conceit  and  arrogations  of  "  the  church^'' 
so  called,  a  publication  edited  and  prefaced  by  his  next  door 
Episcopal  neighbor,  and,  horror  of  horrors  I  innocence  is  at  the 
stake  again;  it  is  "a  most  reckless  attack  upon  Episcopacy!" 

Will  my  friend  gain  sympathy  for  himself  or  for  his  cause, 
by  such  an  attempt  to  fasten  an  odious  charge  on  me  ?  It 
ill  becomes  our  brethren  of  that  denomination,  in  any  circum- 
stances, to  talk  of  being  attacked.  In  the  present  instance 
the  charge  is  especially  unfortunate. 


SOMETHING  AMUSING. 

It  is  amusing  to  observe  the  wondrous  air  of  meekness,  and 
of  inoffensive,  child-like  amiabihty,  asvsumed  by  our  Episcopal 
friends,  and  the  appearance  of  deep  surprise  which  they  occa- 
sionally exhibit,  that  any  one  should  feel  himself  injured  or 
aggrieved  by  what  they  say  and  do.  See  a  beautiful  example 
of  this  at  the  opening  of  our  author's  introductory  discourse, 
on  the  seventh  page. 

"  Surrounded  as  we  are  at  the  present  day,  with  such  a 
variety  of  contending  sects,  all  claiming  to  form  part  of  Christ's 
body,  which  is  his  church,  and  differing,  as  we  know  we  do 
from  them,  in  many  important  particulars,  it  becomes  us  to  see 
to  it  that  toe  are  built  upon  '  the  foundation  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner 
stone.'  As  to  the  nature  or  validity  of  the  claims  which 
others  may  present  for  such  a  foundation,  we  do  not  design  to 
speak ;  '  to  their  own  master  they  stand  or  fall.'  We  have  not 
undertaken  this  subject  in  a  spirit  of  conti'oversy,  and,  in 
dependence  on  divine  grace,  have  determined,  while  we  shall 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  9 

fearlessly  advocate  wliat  we  hold  to  be  divine  truth,  to  say 
nothing  which,  rightly  understood  and  received,  can  give  just 
cause  of  offense  to  those  who  differ  from  us.  At  the  same  time, 
I  would  take  this  occasion  to  remark,  that  I  shall  not  hold 
myself  responsible  for  inferences,  which  others  may  be  pleased 
draw  from  the  positions  I  shall  attempt  to  establish." 

"  As  to  the  nature  and  validity  of  the  claims  which  others 
may  present  for  such  a  foundation  we  do  not  design  to 
spealcV  Oh  no,  not  a  word ;  but  we  intend  to  show  that  every 
inch  and  hair's-breadth  of  that  foundation  is  fully  occupied  by 
ourselves !  We  intend  to  make  such  an  exhibition  of  our  own 
exclusive  possession  of  that  ground,  as  shall  convince  all  who 
attend  to  us,  that  whatever  claims  others  may  present  to  be 
upon  it,  their  feet  are  really  dangling  in  the  air !  We  have 
determined  to  say  nothing  disrespectful  of  them,  or  of  their 
pretensions.  If  they  think  they  have  a  right  to  call  themselves 
churches  of  Christ,  and  their  ministers,  ministers  of  Christ,  and 
their  sacraments,  ordinances  of  Christ,  we  shall  not  say  that 
they  are  deceived,  nor  shall  we  say  that  they  are  impostors  for 
claiming  such  things  before  the  world ;  we  shall  barely  show,  in 
the  exercise  of  all  christian  kindness,  that  our  church  is  the 
only  true  church  of  Christ  that  there  is  in  the  world,  and  its 
ministry  the  only  ministry,  and  its  sacraments  the  only  sacra- 
ments; and    "  WE  SHALL  not  hold  ourselves  accountable 

FOR     THE     INFERENCES    WHICH     OTHERS    MAY    BE    PLEASED    TO 


DRAW 


I!!  " 


"  We  have  not  undertaken  this  subject,"  says  our  author,  "  in 
a  spirit  of  controversy,  and,  in  dependence  on  divine  grace, 
have  determined  to  say  nothing,  which  rightly  understood  and 
received,  can  give  just  cause  of  offense  to  those  who  differ 
from  us."  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  did  not  tell  us,  how  we 
are  to  understand  and  receive  these  exclusive  assumptions  of 
his  church,  so  as  not  to  find  in  them  just  cause  of  offense. 

We  are  not  offended  with  our  Episcopal  friends  for  differing 
from  us.  We  are  not  offended  with  them  for  being  Episcopalians. 


10  THE  CHURCH. 

If  it  suits  them,  they  may  be  in  all  respects  precisely  what 
they  are,  abating  the  miserable  folly  and  impertinence  of 
those  pretensions,  by  which  they  seek  to  injure  and  degrade 
others,  and  w^e  will  engage  that  their  tender  sensibilities  shall 
never  be  wounded  again  by  "  a  reckless  attack  "  from  us.  Let 
them  adopt  the  moderate  views  so  ably  stated  and  defended  by 
arclil)ishop  Whately,  in  his  "  Kingdom  of  Christ " —  let  them 
come  down  from  their  high  stilts,  and  consent  to  tread  the 
common  earth  with  their  brethren,  and  we  pledge  ourselves 
that  they  shall  never  be  molested.  We  will  say  to  them  as 
Abram  said  to  Lot,  "Let  there  be  no  strife  I  pray  thee, 
between  me  and  thee,  and  between  my  herdsmen  and  thy 
herdsmen,  for  we  be  brethren.  Is  not  the  whole  land  before 
thee  ?  Separate  thyself,  I  pray  thee,  from  me ;  if  thou  wilt 
take  the  left  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  right ;  or  if  thou  depart 
to  the  right  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  left."  We  will  not 
consent  to  be  trod  upon,  nor  to  yield  to  them  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  God's  footstool.  So  long  as  they  attempt  the  former, 
or  claim  the  latter,  we  shall  feel  constrained  to  show  them  that 
the  attempt  is  disagreeable  to  us,  and  the  claim  fanatical  and 
foolish.  Their  innocence  of  any  design  to  give  offense  will  not 
protect  them.  When  we  feel  the  sharp  ends  of  their  stilts 
trampling  us,  or  their  elbows  jostling  us,  we  shall  certainly 
begin  to  draiv  inferences  unfavorable  to  the  kindness  of  their 
intentions,  whethei-  they  say  any  thing  or  not  ;  and  if  they  do 
not  "  hold  themselves  accountable  for  the  inferences  which  we 
draw^''  we,  at  least,  shall  hold  them  so.  They  may  rely  upon 
it,  such  treatment  will  not  be  so  "  understood  and  received,^^  as 
not  to  be  construed  into  ^^just  cause  of  offense." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  11 

THE  CHURCH  — ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP. 

This  is  the  title  upon  the  back  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  book,  which, 
when  we  examine  farther,  we  find  to  be  equivalent  in  his  mind, 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  its  ministry  and  wor- 
ship. Such  is  the  doctrine.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
is  THE  CHURCH,  at  least,  so  far  as  all  protestantdom  is  concerned. 

Now  the  question  arises,  whether,  in  this,  "just  cause  of 
offense "  is  afforded  to  other  protestant  christians.  Suppose 
that  a  small  body  of  citizens  among  us,  associated  for  political 
purposes,  should  put  forth,  in  a  book  entitled  "  The  State,  its 
OflScers  and  Institutions,"  a  labored  argument  to  show  that  theij 
are  the  state,  that  they  alone  have  the  constitutional  right  to 
rule  in  the  state,  and  to  administer  its  institutions.  My  mind 
may  be  singularly  obtuse,  but  it  does  seem  to  me,  that  other 
citizens  would  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  avoid  drawing  the 
inference  that  something  very  like  an  assault  was  intended 
upon  certain  rights  and  privileges  of  their  own.  I  can  not  but 
think,  if  the  general  exj^ression  assumed  any  other  form  than 
that  of  simple  derision,  that  we  should  hear  loud  and  earnest 
voices  of  protestation ;  nor  should  I  be  surprised,  if  some  very 
severe  things  w^ere  said  about  the  presumption  and  arrogance 
of  the  men  who  were  found  setting  uj)  these  haughty  and 
supercilious  claims. 

Such  is  precisely  the  attitude  which  our  Episcopal  friends 
are  taking  in  the  midst  of  us,  and  for  this,  and  this  only,  we 
complain  of  them.  We  claim  to  have  the  same  interest  in  the 
churchy  and  the  same  rights  in  it,  with  themselves,  and  it 
would  be  the  merest  pusillanimity  in  us,  to  sit  still  and  allow 
them  to  propagate  their  doctrine  without  impediment. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  when  we  oppose  these  exscinding  and 
arrogant  pretensions  of  Episcopalians,  that  we  are  opposing  the 
Episcopal  church.  Let  the  Episcopal  church  five  and  flour- 
ish.    Our  prayer  to  God  is,  that  he  will  build  it  up  in  faith, 


12  THE  CHURCH, 

and  love,  and  humility,  and  every  grace,  and  preserve  it  a  faith- 
ful and  holy  church,  to  the  honor  of  Christ  as  long  as  the 
world  stands ;  for  we  believe  that  its  idiosyncracies  are  suited  to 
the  indiosyncracies  of  a  great  multitude  of  minds;  and  that 
it  is  adapted  to  do  much  good  which  never  could  be  done  by 
any  other  existing  agency.  But  let  not  the  Episcopal  church 
claim  to  be  the  churchy  to  the  exclusion  of  other  churches  as 
sound  in  the  faith,  as  pure  in  practice,  and  as  devoted  to  the 
honor  and  glory  of  God  as  herself.  This  is  false  doctrine^ 
which  we  feel  impelled,  not  only  by  the  instincts  of  self-preser- 
vation, but  by  a  high  and  solemn  sense  of  duty,  to  resist. 


MR.    SCHUYLER'S    POSITION. 

For  the  exact  position  taken  by  our  author,  the  reader  may 
be  referred  to  a  passage  occurring  on  page  eighth,  in  his  intro- 
ductory lecture.     He  says, 

"We  shall  discuss  our  claim  to  be  the  church  founded 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  an  independent  question; 
simply  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  church,  as  episcopally 
constituted,  is  after  the  apostolic  model,  and  that  thus  consti- 
tuted, we  have  received  it,  by  a  regular  line  of  succession,  from 
the  apostles  themselves." 

That  which  is  here  proposed  for  discussion  is,  "  our  claim  to 
be  THE  CHURCH,"  &c.,  &c.  TMs  looks  like  a  very  simple  prop- 
osition, and  the  ordinary  reader  would,  of  course,  suppose  that 
an  attempt  is  about  to  be  made  to  prove  that  the  Episcopal 
church,  as  it  exists  in  this  country,  and  in  Great  Britain,  and 
wherever  else  it  has  been  established,  is  "  the  church,  founded 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,"  comprehensive  of  every  thing  that 
belongs  to  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  exclusive  of 
very  thing  besides  which  bears  the  name  of  a  church.  But 
this,  evidently,  is  not  our  author's  meaning ;  for  when  he  comes 
to  his  argument,  on  page  thirty-five,  the  form  of  his  statement 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  13 

is  changed,  and  his  readers  are  invited  to  an  examination  of 
'■^our  own  claims  to  be  a  true  branch  of  the  apostohc  church." 
It  can  not,  therefore,  be  of  the  Episcopal  church  that  he  is 
speaking  on  page  eighth,  for  surely  he  would  not  be  guilty  of 
so  great  a  solecism  as  to  call  a  branch  of  the  church,  the  church. 
A  branch  of  the  church,  can  no  more  be  the  church,  than  a 
branch  of  a  tree  can  be  the  tree,  or  a  branch  of  a  river,  the 
river.  What  then  does  he  mean,  when  he  proposes  to  discuss 
"  OUR  claim  to  be  the  church  ? "  &c.,  &c.  Whose  claim  will 
he  discuss  ?  Who  are  we  ?  He  says,  "  we  shall  discuss  our 
claim  to  be  the  church  founded  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as 
an  independent  question,  simply  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the 
church,  as  episcopally  constituted,  is  after  the  apostolic  model, 
and  that  thus  constituted,  we  have  received  it  in  a  regular  line 
of  succession  from  the  apostles  themselves."  It  is  evident  that 
WE  are  all  those  who  belong  to  churches  episcopally  constitu- 
ted, and  which  claim  to  have  the  regular  line  of  succession 
from  the  apostles.  Now  the  only  churches  episcopally  consti- 
tuted, and  blessed,  according  to  our  author's  view,  with  this  regu- 
lar line  of  succession,  are,  besides  his  own,  the  Roman  Cathohc 
and  the  Greek.  I  must  give  him  credit  for  speaking  intelli- 
gently, and  using  language  in  accordance  with  liis  own  theory. 
I  am  bound  therefore  to  conclude,  that  when  he  announces  for 
his  thesis,  "  Our  claim  to  the  church,"  &c.,  he  means  the 
claim  of  us  prelatists,  of  us  Episcopalians,  and  Roman  Catho- 
lics, and  Greek  christians.  I  know,  that  in  his  book,  he  says 
nothing  directly  of  the  other  branches  of  the  church;  for, 
although  he  promises  to  discuss  "  Our  claim  to  be  the 
CHURCH,"  yet  when  he  comes  to  his  Avork,  the  proposition  is 
curtailed  of  its  large  dimensions,  and  we  have  simply,  "  our 
OWN  claims  to  be  a  true  branch^''  &c.  Instead  of  being  a 
defense  of  "  the  church,"  his  book  turns  out  to  be  a  defense, 
merely,  of  the  Episcopal  branch  of  it  ;  i.  e.  directly  a  defense 
of  the  Episcopal  branch;  though,  in  fact,  seeing  that  it  is 
an  independent  question    in   regard    to  churches    episcopally 


14  THE  CHURCH, 

constituted,  a  defense  of  the  whole ;  because  it  is  on  the  same 
episcopal  constitution,  and  regular  apostolical  succession,  so 
claimed,  that  the  whole  depends. 

If  Mr.  S.  should  say  that  I  misrepresent  him,  I  would  like 
to  have  him  inform  us  in  what  particular.  If  I  do  not  under- 
stand him,  the  fault  is  his  own.  He  should  have  wiitten  with 
more  perspicuity.  But  I  do  understand  him,  and  I  do  not  mis- 
represent him.  He  means  just  what  I  say,  that  "  the  church" 
is  composed  of  all  those  particular  churches  which  have  the 
episcopal  constitution,  and  the  so-called  regular  succession  in 
a  line  of  bishops  from  the  apostles,  and  that  the  Episcopal 
church  is  a  true  branch,  by  virtue  of  its  possessing  these  two 
grand  quahfications.  "  Ouk  claim  to  be  the  church  "  which 
he  proposes  to  discuss,  is  not  "  our  claim  "  as  Episcopalians,  but 
"our  claim,"  in  common  with  Roman  Catholics,  and  Greek 
christians,  as  prelatists,  having  the  true  succession,  as  is  main- 
tained, from  the  apostles.  Every  thing  in  the  question  which 
he  raises,  is  made  to  turn  upon  the  episcopal  constitution,  and 
the  so-called  apostolical  succession.  Soundness  in  "  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  is  nothing.  Purity  of  christian 
morals,  whether  in  theory  or  in  practice,  is  nothing.  The 
Greek  church,  with  its  downright  heathenism,  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  with  its  mere  shade,  perhaps,  of  superiority, 
are  veritable  branches  of  the  church  of  God ;  while  the  Bap- 
tist, and  Methodist,  and  Presbyterian,  and  other  non-prelatical 
churches,  with  all  their  apostolic  doctrine  and  spirit  and  labors, 
are  mere  societies  of  misguided  men,  wholly  unowned,  and  un- 
authorized of  Heaven.  Mr.  Schuyler  believes  this!  Do  you 
believe  it,  my  dear  brother  ?  I  can  hardly  persuade  myself 
that  you  are  really  in  earnest.  At  least,  I  must  think  that 
your  honest,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  truly  pious  heart  often  whis- 
pers its  incredulity.  To  me,  it  is  something  strange  and  mon- 
strous.— Mr.  Schuyler,  however,  believes  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
part  of  his  high-church  creed,  which  he  feels  bound  to  assert 
and  to  maintain.     If  neither  his  reason,  nor  his  piety  revolts,  I 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  15 

wonder  that  his  pride  does  not ;  for  he  needs  not  me  to  tell  him 
that  these  pretensions  of  his  church,  are  utterly  repudiated  by 
those  into  whose  society  she  is  so  anxious  to  insinuate  herself. 
Both  these  old  harlots  turn  the  back  upon  her.  I  can  only  say, 
she  is  welcome  to  such  company  if  she  likes  it ;  and  above  all, 
she  is  welcome  to  the  deep  disgrace  of  seeking  to  thrust  herself 
into  company  that  does  not  like  her,  and  that  makes  itself 
merry  at  her  ambitious  aspirings. 

Our  author's  actual  proposition  is  two-fold,  as  follows : 

The  church  is  known  by  two  grand  and  essential  charac- 
teristics,—  an  episcopal  constitution,  and  a  true  succession^  in 
a  regular  line  of  bishops^  from  the  apostles. 

The  Episcopal  church  is  a  true  branch  of  the  church, 
because,  in  common  ivith  the  Greek  and  Roman  Catholic 
churches,  it  bears  these  essential  marks. 

We  intend,  in  due  course,  to  examine  the  arguments  with 
which  he  seeks  to  establish  this  position.  Something,  however, 
is  first  to  be  said  on  another  subject. 


THE  INVISIBLE  CHURCH. 

Our  author,  in  opening  the  way  to  his  main  siibject,  makes  a 
bold  push  at  the  notion  of  an  invisible  church,  and  endeavors 
to  prove  that  the  church  can  have  no  existence  save  a  visible 
one,  with  visible  forms,  and  a  visible  organization ;  and  that  no 
one  can  be  properly  said  to  be  of  the  church,  or  to  have  any 
share  in  the  blessings  promised  thereto,  who  is  not  found  within 
that  visible  pale.  If  it  is  his  belief  that  all  members  of  "  the 
church  "  will  be  finally  saved,  and  that  none  else  will  be,  then 
I  can  see  a  reason  for  his  zeal  on  this  point,  but  not  other- 
wise ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that  the  idea  of  an  invisible  church 
is  in  any  way  incompatible  with  that  of  a  visible  church,  even 
of  a  true  visible  church,  as  opposed  to  all  other  visible  organi- 
zations claiming  to  be  churches,  or  branches  of   the  church. 


16  THE  CHURCH, 

We  do'"  not  deny  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  organized  a  visi- 
ble church,  as  our  author  has  very  fairly  and  fully  shown  from 
our  standards.  We  do  not  deny  that  there  is  a  ^dsible  church 
in  existence  at  the  present  time,  and  a  true  \dsible  church  as 
opposed  to  false  ones.  We  only  deny  that  the  true  visible 
church  exists  under  one  name  and  without  visible  distinctions; 
and  in  this  does  not  he  agree  with  us  ?  Does  not  the  true  visi- 
ble church,  according  to  himself,  consist  of  three  different 
branches,  so  separate,  that  for  the  most  part,  they  wholly  dis- 
own each  other,  with  distinct  names,  and  distmct  organizations  ? 
In  fact,  the  only  difference  between  us  on  this  subject,  is,  that 
he  makes  the  true  visible  church  consist  of  those  churches 
which,  whatever  their  moral  condition,  and  the  state  of  chris- 
tian doctrine  in  them  may  be,  have  an  episcopal  constitution, 
and  the  alledged  apostolical  succession  in  an  unbroken  line  of 
bishops;  while  toe  make  it  consist  of  those  churches  which 
maintain  the  essential  features  of  apostolic  faith  and  practice. 
He  pleads  for  a  visible  church  perpetuated  by  succession  from 
the  apostles,  in  an  unbroken  line  of  bishops;  we  for  a  Aisible 
church,  perpetuated  by  succession  from  the  apostles  in  the 
spirit  and  truth  and  power  of  the  Gospel  which  they  preached. 
We  yield  to  none,  in  respect  and  reverence  for  the  external, 
visible  church  of  God.  StiU,  we  believe  with  Paul,  Rom. 
ii:  28,  29,  that  "  He  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly;  nei- 
ther is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh;  but  he 
is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  j)raise  is  not  of 
men,  but  of  God."  We  beheve  that  the  visible  church  has  in 
its  bosom  many  who  are  really  not  Christ's  disciples ;  and  that 
there  may  be  men,  out  of  the  bosom  of  the  ^^sible  church,  who, 
nevertheless,  are  truly  and  sincerely  disciples  of  the  Saviour,  and 
will  be  owned  as  such  in  the  great  day  of  account ;  for  we  say 
still  with  the  apostle,  Rom.  ii:  26,  27,  "If  the  uncircumcision 
keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncircumcision 
be  counted  for  circumcision?    and  shall  not  uncircumcision, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  17 

which  is  by  nature,  if  it  fulfill  the  law,  judge  thee,  who  by  the 
letter  and  circumcision  dost  transgress  the  law  ? "  As  it  was  not 
circumcision  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  hearty  that  under  a  former 
dispensation,  made  a  man  truly  a  member  of  the  church, 
so,  upon  the  same  principle,  it  is  not  the  outward  washing  of 
water  now,  but  the  inward  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  that  makes  a  man  a  true  member  of 
the  church  of  God.  Our  idea,  therefore,  is,  that  the  visible 
church  does  not  truly  express  the  church  which  is  Chrisfs 
hody^  spoken  of  in  Col.  i:  18,  "And  he  is  the  head  of  the 
body,  the  church,"  We  believe  that  the  church  represented 
by  outward  organizations  and  forms,  is  only  the  a'pi:)arent^  and 
not  the  real  church  spoken  of  where  we  read,  Eph.  v:  25-27, 
that  "  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it, 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  with  the  washing  of  water, 
by  the  word ;  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious 
church,  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing :  but 
that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."  The  chmch,  as 
we  regard  it,  and  we  have  never  thought  that  we  ht^ld  novel  or 
pecuhar  views,  consists  visibly  of  all  those  wno  profess  to  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  and  conform  outwardly  to  his  requirements : 
really  it  consists  of  all  those  who  do  beheve  in  Christ,  and  who 
yield  a  true  spiritual  obedience  to  his  commands.  We  are 
compelled  to  believe  in  an  iuA-isible  church,  because  the  marks 
of  the  true  "  church  which  is  Christ's  body,"  which  he  loved, 
and  gave  himself  to  redeem,  and  which  his  veracity  is  pledged 
to  glorify,  are  invisible  marks. 

These  views  Mr.  Schuyler  is  pleased  to  stigmatize  as  new^ 
and  to  represent  as  belonging  exclusively  to  us.  He  says,  page 
twelve :  "  But  with  the  great  majority  of  those  who  differ  from 
us,  at  the  present  day,  a  new  doctrine  is  in  vogue,  and  we  are 
told  of  an  'invisible  church' — 'that  the  true  church  does 
only  consist  of  such  men  as  have  a  title  to  God's  favor,  by  their 
faith  and  other  christian  virtues,'  "  &c.  If  being  found  in  the 
New  Testament  makes  this  doctrine  new,  then  it  is  so.  That  it 
2 


18  THE  CHURCH, 

is  exclusively  ours,  is  certainly  a  new  idea.  I  might  quote  any 
number  of  Episcopal  authors,  and  the  very  best  of  them,  who 
express  exactly  the  views  which  we  hold.  A  single  quotation  I 
will  indulge  in,  from  an  author,  whose  high-church  episcopacy 
will  not  be  called  in  question;  I  mean  archdeacon  Maiming, 
of  Chichester,  England.  I  have  before  me  a  volume  of  his 
sermons,  printed  in  London,  in  1844,  dedicated  "  To  the  Right 
Reverend  Father  in  God,  George,  Lord  Bishop  of  New  Jersey," 
that  is  to  say,  to  bishop  Doane.  In  the  sermon  entitled, 
«  God's  Kingdom  invisible,''  page  182,  he  says,  in  connec- 
tion with  more  to  the  same  effect :  "  As  we  may  partake  of  the 
water  of  baptism,  or  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  holy  eucharist, 
and  yet  have  no  part  in  the  saving  grace  they  bear  to  man,  so 
may  we  partake  of  the  holy  catholic  church,  which  to  the 
eyes  of  faith  is  visible  in  all  lands  under  heaven,  and  yet  have 
no  fellowship  with  the  saints  of  Christ,  seen  or  unseen — with 
that  mystical  body  of  Christ,  ivhich  is  the  company  of  cdl 
faithful  people  —  loith  the  church  of  the  first-born,  whose 
names  are  written  in  heaven.""  Add  to  this  another  passage 
found  in  the  sermon,  entitled,  "  The  ivaiting  of  the  invisible 
church;""  on  page  346 — "We  must  wait,  and  not  be  weary; 
we  must  bear  all  the  fretfulness  and  provocation  of  earthly 
tempers  and  false  tongues  for  a  little  season.  Meanwhile,  the 
perpetual  worship  of  our  unseen  Master,  and  the  communion 
of  hidden  saints,  and  the  fellowship  of  the  invisible  church, 
must  be  our  strength  and  stay."  This  same  archdeacon 
Manning,  according  to  recent  intelligence  from  England,  I 
regret  to  say,  is  among  the  many  who  have  recently  renounced 
the  Episcopal  church,  and  entered  the  Roman  Catholic. 

It  simply  amazes  me,  that  any  person  who  has  a  tolerable 
knowledge  of  the  scriptures,  should  not  have  discovered  in 
them  the  distinction  which  I  have  expressed.  Pray,  what  is 
that  '•'•  church  of  the  first-born,  which  is  written  in  heaven ^^ 
mentioned  in  Heb.  xi:  23.  Is  it  the  church  visible,  con- 
sisting of  all  the  baptized,  and  of  none  else  ?     Mr.  Manning 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  19 

says,  it  is  *^the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  the  company  of  all 
faithful  peopled  So  we  believe.  In  the  places  that  have  been 
quoted  from  Colossi ans,  and  Ephesians,  not  to  speak  of  others, 
the  term  "  church "  can  not  be  understood  as  referring  to  a 
visible,  organized  body,  but  must  of  necessity  stand  for  the 
body  of  true  spiritual  believers,  God's  really  redeemed  and 
sanctified  and  chosen  people. 

Mr.  S.  will  admit  that  the  visible  church,  truly  and  properly 
speaking,  consists  of  all  its  visible  members.  If  he  makes  the 
condition  of  actual  membership  to  be  sincerity  of  profession, 
then,  since  sincerity  is  an  in\dsible  grace,  he  loses  his  point, 
and  the  true  church,  according  to  himself,  becomes  invisible. 
Now,  will  he  maintain  that  every  member  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  branches  of  what  he  holds 
to  be  the  church,  is  a  real  part  of  Christ's  body?  If  Mr.  S. 
believes  this,  then  he  believes  that  every  member  of  the  Epis- 
copal church  will  be  saved ;  for  so  Paul  teaches  of  all  those 
who  belong  to  this  church. —  Read  the  whole  of  the  first  chap- 
of  Ephesians. —  Does  he  believe  it  ?  Then  also,  he  believes 
that  none  but  members,  of  what  he  calls  the  church,  i.  e.  the 
church  as  a  whole,  consisting  of  its  three  branches,  will  be  saved. 
Does  he  believe  this  ? 

"  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it."  Does 
the  church  here  mean  the  visible  body  of  professing  chris- 
tians ;  or  does  it  mean  the  invisible  company  of  true  believers  ? 
— "  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not 
having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should 
be  holy  and  without  blemish."  Is  it  the  visible  Church  that 
is  to  be  presented  thus,  composed  of  all  its  visible  members ; 
or  is  it  "  the  church,  which  is  Christ's  body,"  composed  of 
those,  and  only  those  who  are  joined  to  him  by  faith  ?  If  my 
brother  is  in  doubt  as  to  what  "  the  church  "  in  this  place 
means,  let  him  ask  himself,  when,  and  where  the  presentation 
of  it  by  Christ  unto  himself,  of  which  the  text  speaks,  is  to  take 
place.      His  own  reply  will  undoubtedly  be,    in   another  life, 


20  THE  CHURCH, 

and  in  heaven.  Then  let  him  ask  again,  Who  are  the  men 
that  shall  share  in  the  glories  and  blessedness  of  that  pre- 
sentation ?  I  am  sure  he  will  answer, — None  hnt  the  true  chil- 
dren of  God  the  Father;  none  hut  those  that  shall  be  found 
to  "  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  ivhite  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb'^  These  then  are  the  church;  and  is  not  the 
church,  so  regarded,  invisible?  Can  any  human  being  tell 
with  certainty  of  whom  it  is  composed  ? 

I  have  already  written  more  on  this  point  than  it  deserves 
in  this  discussion.  I  have  done  so,  out  of  deference  to  our 
author's  apparently  high  sense  of  its  importance.  In  regard  to 
"  the  most  harassing  facts  "  of  his  "  beloved  Diocesan,"—  see  his 
introductory  lecture,  page  fifteen, —  I  have  nothing  to  say. 
Who  is  harassed  by  them,  I  can  not  imagine.  They  are  good 
facts  to  prove  that  our  Saviour  established  a  visible  church,  but 
what  bearing  they  have  upon  the  question  of  the  church  invis- 
ible, it  surpasses  my  shrewdness  to  discover ;  and,  with  all  frank- 
ness, I  must  say  the  same  of  my  friend's  reasonings  on  this 
subject.  Both  he  and  his  bishop  seem  entirely  in  the  dark  as 
to  what  is  meant  by  the  invisible  church,  and  to  have  aimed 
their  blows  at  something  that  was  to  them  invisible  indeed. 
Fortunately,  however  we  may  differ  in  regard  to  this  question 
of  the  invisible  church,  we  are  perfectly  agreed  in  believing 
that  there  is  a  visible  church,  and  it  is  with  that  that  we  are  at 
present  concerned. 

THE  MAIN  QUESTIONS  CONSIDERED. 

We  could  wish  that  our  author  had  undertaken  a  logical 
discussion  of  the  propositions  which,  not  formally,  but  substan- 
tially as  we  have  expressed  them,  he  lays  down  at  the  outset. 
As  he  has  not  done  so,  we  must,  per  force,  follow  him  in  the 
method  which  he  has  chosen.  His  argument  is  arranged  under 
three  heads — the  church;  the  ministry  of  the  church;  and 
the  apostolical  succession  of  the  church. 


ITS  MIi;riSTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  2l 

THE    CHURCH. 

Under  this  head  we  find  almost  nothing  that  seems  to  demand 
attention.  We  see  very  Uttle  toobject  to,  even  in  the  definition,  on 
page  thirty-six ;  and  if  it  might  be  so  modified  as  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  "  visible  society  "  which  our  author  says  the  church 
is,  is  not  necessarily  a  simple  unit,  but  may  exist  in  several 
separate  and  distinct  branches,  we  would  not  hesitate  to  receive 
it  as  it  stands.  Nor  do  we  think  that  he  himself  would  object 
to  such  a  modification,  since  he  evidently  regards  the  Episcopal 
church  as  being  only  a  branch  of  the  true  church.  We  think 
he  would  hardly  be  willing  to  say  that  the  Roman  Catholic,  and 
Greek,  and  Episcopal  churches  compose  literally  one  society; 
though  he  certainly  beheves  that  the  church,  as  a  whole,  con- 
sists of  these  three.  If  he  will  insist  upon  his  definition  unmo- 
dified, then  we  have  a  question  or  two  that  we  desire  to  propose 
to  him.     He  says : 

"  The  Church  is  a  visible  society,  founded  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  composed  of  an  unhmited  number  of  members,  pro- 
fessing allegiance  to  Christ  as  their  invisible  Head,  acknowledg- 
ing a  common  faith,  set  forth  in  God's  holy  word,  endowed 
with  peculiar,  covenanted  privileges,  and  ruled  by  men  deriv- 
ing their  authority  from  Christ,  with  power  to  transmit  that 
authority  to  others." 

"  The  church  is  a  visible  society^  Does  our  author  then 
maintain  that  the  Roman  Catholic,  and  Greek,  and  Episcopal 
churches  constitute  "  a  visible  society  ?  "  By  a  society,  we 
understand  a  union  of  any  number  of  persons,  having  a  com- 
mon object  in  view,  and  animated  in  regard  to  that  object,  with 
a  common  spirit.  The  ideas  are  involved,  of  partnership,  and 
fellowship,  and  fraternity.  By  a  visible  society,  we  understand 
a  society  that  has  a  visible  bond  of  union,  in  which  there  is 
visible  partnership,  and  fellowship,  and  fraternity.  Now,  we 
ask,  what  visible  bond  of  union  there  is  between  the  three 


22  THE  CHURCH, 

branches  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  church  ?  At  what  points  do  they 
come  together  and  cohere,  so  as  to  justify  us  in  cahing  them 
one?  Does  not  each  of  them  stand  as  truly  by  itself  as  though 
the  others  did  not  exist  ?  And  where  do  we  discover  the  visible 
signs  of  partnership,  of  fellowship,  of  fraternity,  among  them  ? 
Are  they  mutually  represented  in  each  other's  councils  and 
conventions  ?  Do  they  dismiss  members  from  one  to  another  ? 
Do  their  ministers  exchange  pulpits  ?  Do  they  love  one  another, 
and  treat  one  another  with  affectionate  civility  and  courtesy  ?  In 
a  word,  do  they  stand  up  before  the  world  as  one  great  brother- 
hood in  Christ  ?  Every  one  knows  how  these  questions  are  to 
be  answered.     How  then  do  they  constitute  a  visible  society  ? 

But  if  they  do  not,  all  together,  constitute  a  visible  society, 
which  is  the  church;  if  on  the  contrary,  like  Jews  and 
Samaritans,  they  "  have  no  deahngs,"  but  mutually  despise  and 
anathematize  each  other,  how  then,  upon  Mr.  Schuyler's  prin- 
ciples ?  —  is  Christ  divided  ?  Alas,  alas !  into  what  a  wretched 
condition  has  his  kingdom  fallen,  and  how  mournful  are  its 
prospects !  Our  Saviour  himself  has  taught  us  that  "  every 
kingdom  divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  desolation;  and 
every  city  or  house  divided  against  itself  shall  not  stand." 
Changing  the  figure,  it  may  be  said  that  the  body  of  Christ 
has  fallen  into  hands  more  injurious  than  those  of  his  mur- 
derers, for  they  did  show  it  some  respect,  and  "  not  a  bone  of 
him  was  broken ; "  but  now,  we  see  it  actually  rent  and  torn 
asunder  by  those  who  profess  to  be  his  worshipers ;  worse  than 
wounded,  literally  severed  into  parts,  in  the  house  of  his 
pretended  friends. 

We  also,  describing  the  church,  say,  that  it  "  is  a  visible 
society,"  consisting  of  all  those  particular  churches  that  hold 
the  head,  which  is  Christy  and  the  truth  as  it  is  in  him.  From 
this  visible  society  we  believe  the  Romish  and  Greek  churches 
have  separated  themselves,  by  an  open  apostacy  from  "  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  that  they  are  no  longer  of 
"  the  church,"  but  are  synagogues  of   Satan,  antichrist,  "  that 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  23 

wicked,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his 
mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming." 
If  Mr.  Schuyler  shall  endeavor  to  retort  upon  me,  by  saying 
that  the  evidences  of  union  are  not  very  apparent  between  the 
different  branches  of  the  church,  as  I  would  compose  it,  I  can 
only  admonish  him  that  his  endeavor  must  be  a  very  strenuous 
one  to  succeed  in  showing  that  there  is  not  enough  of  real  and 
acknowledged  partnership,  and  fellowship,  and  fraternity,  among 
the  recognized  evangelical  denominations  of  christians,  to  meet 
the  requisite  conditions  of  a  visible  society.  I  own  that  there 
is  less  of  true  christian  union  among  the  churches  than  there 
ought  to  be.  The  lack  of  it  is  a  cause  of  sincere  and  profound 
grief  to  all  devout  and  Christ-loving  men,  but  there  is  still 
union  and  sympathy,  and  a  conscious  identification  and  oneness 
pervading  the  entire  body,  however  diversified  may  be  its 
branches,  and  the  names  by  which  they  are  called.  They  all 
acknowledge  a  common  end  of  toil  and  eftbrt.  They  all  feel 
and  own  that  they  have  a  common  interest.  They  can,  and  do 
often  come  together  and  mingle  as  churches,  in  the  most 
delightful  fellowship,  and  they  perform  toward  each  other  those 
acts  which  indicate  and  imply,  that  though  divided,  they  are 
nevertheless  one  in  Christ.  If  there  is  an  exception  to  this,  it 
must  be  said,  and  we  say  it  with  unaffected  sorrow,  that  excep- 
tion is  the  Episcopal  church.  If  there  is  the  dreadful  sin  of 
schism  any  where,  I  know  not  at  whose  door  it  lies,  if  not  at 
hers.  I  speak  of  the  Episcopal  church,  as  such.  Very  many 
Episcopalians  I  know,  are  as  untainted  with  the  schismatic 
spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  separatism,  as  I  hope  that  I  myself 
am.  Their  hearts  beat  freely  in  unison  with  the  heart  of  the 
great  christian  world.  They  are  glad  to  discover  the  image  of 
Christ  any  where,  and  to  acknowledge  it,  wherever  they  find  it. 
Not  as  individual  christians  merely,  but  as  churches,  they  are 
willing  to  meet  and  own  those  whom  they  recognize  as  true 
disciples  of  their  Lord ;  and  they  can  and  do  rejoice  in  their 
successes,  and  bid  them   God  speed  in  their  work  of  saving 


24  THE  CHURCH, 

souls  and  building  up  the  kingdom.  This  however,  can  not  be 
said  of  the  Episcopal  church ;  and  we  sincerely  mourn  that  it 
can  not  be. 

The  only  further  exception  that  I  wish  to  take  against  Mr. 
Schuyler's  remarks  on  the  general  subject  of  the  church,  is 
simply  against  the  manner  in  which  he  has  made  them, —  imply- 
ing that  he  is  giving  expression  to  sentiments  peculiarly  Episco- 
palian. He  becomes  quite  excited,  and  displays  an  immense 
amount  of  combativeness  over  points  in  regard  to  which  I  am 
not  aware  that  there  has  ever  been  any  dispute  between  Prela- 
tists  and  Presbyterians.  He  waxes  exceedingly  valiant  for  the 
defense  of  positions,  which  no  body  dreams,  or  ever  did  dream, 
of  assailing.  In  his  simplicity,  did  he  really  think  that  these 
views  are  peculiar  to  EpiscopaHans;  or  did  he  wish  to  strengthen 
his  cause  in  the  prejudices  of  his  readers  by  imputing  to  us  a 
denial  of  them  ? 

Immediately  after  giving  his  definition  of  the  church,  Mr. 
Schuyler  says :  "  you  will  observe,  my  brethren,  I  have  used 
the  term,  '  the  church,'  instead  of  '  a  church,'  because  it  is  the 
only  scriptural  way  of  speaking."  He  then  proceeds  to  show 
that  what  he  says  is  really  so,  and  that  to  say  "  the  church  " 
and  not  "a  church,"  is  the  way  to  speak  according  to  the 
scriptures.  It  is  imphed,  of  course,  that  Presbyterians  do  not 
speak  so,  and  people  are  left  to  draw  their  own  inferences  as  to 
how  corrupt  the  Presbyterian  theory,  in  regard  to  the  church, 
must  have  become,  when  they  do  not  even  speak  the  word  in  a 
scriptural  manner.  But  is  it  so  ?  Do  not  we  Presbyterians  say 
"  the  church  ?  "  We  always  do,  except  when  the  grammatical 
construction  of  the  sentence  in  which  the  word  occurs,  or  some 
other  equally  important  consideration,  requires  a  change  in  the 
form  of  expression.  Why  Mr.  S.  should  object  to  saying  "  a 
church,"  when  it  is  a  church,  and  not  the  church,  of  which  he  is 
speaking,  I  can  not  imagine,  especially  since  he  himself  has 
quoted  a  text  in  which  the  expression  "  a  church"  is  used.  That, 
I  should  think,  would  settle  forever  the  propriety  of  saying  "  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  25 

churcli"  as  often  as  it  is  supposed  the  sense  to  be  expressed 
requires  that  mode  of  speech.  We  always  say  "  the  church " 
when  we  have  reference  to  the  great  univereal  body  of  Christ's 
beheving  people.  For  example,  we  say  "  God  loves  the 
church,  and  will  defend  it  against  all  its  adversaries."  We 
always  use  the  same  form  of  expression  when  we  speak  of  the 
enthe  body  of  christians  within  any  given  limits;  as  in  the 
following  cases :  "  The  church  of  God  in  America,"  or  « the 
church  in  the  Sandwich  Islands,"  or  "  the  church  in  Buffalo." 
When  I,  in  my  own  pulpit,  in\dte  a  meeting  of  the  members  of 
my  own  church  at  any  particular  time  and  place,  I  say,  there 
will  be  a  meeting  of  "  the  church,"  &c.,  &c. 

In  such  a  case  as  the  following,  we  say,  a  church:  "It 
is  a  question  to  be  considered  whether  the  Roman  Catholics 
can  properly  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  church  of 
Christ."  The  propriety  of  this,  I  presume,  will  not  be 
objected  to. 

There  is  still  another  way  of  using  the  word  "  church."  We 
believe  the  church  as  a  whole,  consists  of  several  distinct 
bi-anches.  When  we  speak  of  any  particular  branch  of  the 
church,  we  deem  it  important  to  use  a  term  that  shall  specify 
which  branch  of  the  church  we  mean.  If  it  is  our  own 
branch  that  we  refer  to,  we  always  say,  "the  Presbyterian 
church,"  unless  there  is  something  in  the  immediate  connection, 
or  in  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  the  occasion,  that  makes 
our  meaning  sufficiently  obvious  without  the  use  of  the  specify- 
ing adjective.  So  also,  we  say,  "  the  Methodist  church,"  "  the 
Baptist  church,"  "  the  Episcopal  church."  We  think  it  would 
be  positively  incorrect  in  style,  speaking  in  general  terms,  to  call 
the  Presbyterian  church,  "  the  church,"  to  say  nothing  of  the 
seeming  arrogance  of  such  a  mode  of  speech.  My  brother 
Schuyler  in  gi^^ng  a  general  definition  of  the  church,  could 
hardly  have  used  a  different  form  of  expression  from  that  which 
he  did  use ;  but  I  know  not  how  he  can  justify  the  almost  uni- 
versal practice  of  himself  and  his  brethren,  of  calling  their  own 
3 


26  THE  CHURCH, 

little  branch  of  the  church,  in  a  general  term,  "  the  church,"  as 
though  it  were  the  whole  church. 

For  an  example,  let  me  refer  the  reader  to  a  passage  in  his 
preface :  "  Under  these  circumstances,  the  author  considered  it 
his  duty  to  improve  the  opportunity,  in  using  his  poor  abilities 
in  behalf  of  the  church.^''  Now,  if  he  claimed  that  the  Eng- 
lish Episcopal  church  is  the  only  and  the  entire  church,  this 
would  certainly  be,  for  him,  a  proper  mode  of  speaking ;  but  all 
that  he  claims  for  her  is,  that  she  is  "  a  true  branch  of  the  apos- 
tolical church."  How,  then,  is  it  either  correct  in  style,  or 
decent  on  other  grounds,  for  him  in  such  a  case  as  this,  to  call 
the  English  Episcopal  church  "the  church?"  But  enough 
of  this. 

Again,  in  this  immediate  connection,  page  thirty-seven,  our 
author  says, —  "  That  the  church  is  a  visible  society,  is  plainly 
recognized  in  the  bible.  Thus  we  find  such  expressions  as 
these,"  &c.  He  had  pre\aously  combatted  our  idea,  as  he 
understands  it,  of  the  invisible  church,  and  now  he  makes  the 
existence  of  a  visible  church  a  proposition,  and  enters  zealously 
upon  the  proof  of  it.  Of  course  the  idea  is  implied  that  we 
Presbyterians  do  not  believe  in  a  visible  church ! 

Again,  page  thirty-eight,  — "  That  the  church  is  not  a 
voluntary  society,  we  have  met,  in  our  definition,  with  the  asser- 
tion that  it  was  founded  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  and  endowed 
with  peculiar  covenanted  privileges."  It  is  implied,  of  course, 
that  we  Presbyterians  do  not  beheve  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles founded  or  instituted  a  church,  but  that  we  hold  the 
church  to  be  a  voluntary  society,  that  is,  a  society  constituted 
by  men,  in  such  form  as  is  pleasing  to  them,  without  any 
special  authority  from  the  Saviour,  or  from  those  whom  he 
appointed  to  set  in  order  the  things  of  his  kingdom ! 

One  of  the  most  devout  of  my  brother's  parishioners,  on 
coming  out  of  his  church,  at  the  close  of  the  service  at  which 
this  lecture  was  delivered,  was  heard  to  say, —  indeed,  she  said 
it  to  a  member  of  my  own  church, — "  Only  to  think,  that  any 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  27 

body  should  pretend  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  left  the  world 
without  ever  forming  a  church !  Is  n't  it  absurd  ?  I  do  not 
know  how  some  people  read  their  bibles."  She  had  evidently 
received  the  impression  from  her  rector's  preaching,  that  Pres- 
bjrterians  do  not  believe  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  constituted 
and  left  behind  them  a  church !  —  but,  that  they  just  instructed 
men  in  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  general  theory  of 
religion,  and  left  them  to  form  churches  for  thenaselves  accord- 
ing to  their  various  fancies ! 

-  Need  I  say  again,  that  we  believe  in  the  external,  visible 
church  of  God,  the  church  of  all  ages  ?  Need  I  say  that,  as 
Presbyterians,  we  believe  in  the  visible  church  of  the  Redeemer, 
the  church  of  God  reconstructed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
destined  to  stand  as  long  as  the  world  stands  ?  We  have  jio 
controversy  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  on  this  point.  Here, 
as  to  the  great  fact  involved,  they  and  we  are  perfectly  agreed. 
Still,  as  I  have  akeady  intimated,  we  do  not  believe  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  instituted  and  organized  the  visible  christian 
church  in  such  a  manner  as  to  impress  upon  it  in  all  its  extent, 
and  through  all  time,  a  visible  external  oneness.  That  is,  they 
did  not  so  settle  and  define  all  the  minutia  and  details  of  eccle- 
siastical form  and  order,  as  to  forbid  the  idea  that  the  church 
might  exist  in  separated  parts,  separated  by  minor  and  unes- 
sential differences  of  faith  and  practice,  yet  united  in  all  main 
respects,  and  one  in  spirit  and  in  aims;  separated  in  modes 
of  action,  yet  united  in  the  "  one  hope  of  their  calhng,"  having 
"  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all."  For  the  proof 
of  this,  it  is  quite  enough  to  refer  to  the  fact,  apparent  to  every 
reader  of  the  bible,  that  there  is  no  complete  and  finished  order 
of  ecclesiastical  form  and  government  there  prescribed.  The 
great  and  essential  features  of  the  christian  church  are  clearly 
and  indubitably  set  forth,  so  that  no  man  can  mistake  them, 
but,  farther  than  this,  nothing  is  determined.  Now,  if  it  had 
been  our  Lord's  intention  that  his  visible  church  should  maintain 


§8  THE  CHURCH, 

througli  all  time,  that  absolute  external  oneness  for  which 
Roman  Catholics  contend,  and  for  which  Episcopalians  seem 
sometimes  to  be  equally  earnest,  but  the  principle  of  which  they 
clearly  give  up,  when  they  call  themselves  "  a  branch  of  the 
apostolical  church,"  we  maintain  that  his  own  instructions, 
and  those  of  his  apostles  on  this  subject,  laid  down  in  "  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  would  have  been  specific,  and  definite, 
and  full.  We  maintain,  that  the  New  Testament  would  have 
contained  as  careful,  and  minute,  and  perfect  a  description  of 
the  christian  church,  its  ministry  and  worship,  as  is  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  of  the  Jewish  church,  with  its  ministry  and 
worship.  My  readers  all  know  how,  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation, when  it  was  the  divine  intention  +hat  the  church  should 
exist  with  a  visible  external  oneness,  this  subject  was  treated : 
even  to  the  hem  of  the  priest's  garments  and  the  "  pots  in  the 
Lord's  house,"  specific  directions  were  afforded.  "We  say,  that 
if  there  had  been  a  similar  intention  in  regard  to  the  christian 
church,  there  would  have  been  a  similar  minuteness  of  specifi- 
cation concerning  every  thing  that  was  to  belong  to  it ;  and 
from  the  utter  absence  of  any  such  minute  specification,  we 
infer  that  there  was  no  such  intention. 

I  will  conclude  under  this  head,  by  quoting  from  our  confes- 
sion of  faith,  what  expresses  substantially  the  views  of  all 
Presbyterians  on  this  subject. 

Chap.  XXV :  Sec.  1.  The  catholic  or  universal  church,  which 
is  invisible,  consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect,  that  have 
been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  into  one,  under  Christ,  the  head 
thereof;  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fullness  of  him  that 
fiUeth  all  in  all. 

Sec.  2.  The  \dsible  church,  which  is  also  catholic  or  uni- 
versal under  the  Gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before, 
under  the  law,)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that 
profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children ;  and  is 
the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of 
God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  29 

Sec.  4.  This  catholic  church  hath  been  sometimes  more, 
sometimes  less  \dsible;  and  particular  churches,  which  are 
members  thereof,  are  more  or  less  pure,  according  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel  is  taught  and  embraced,  ordinances  admin- 
istered, and  public  worship  performed  more  or  less  purely  in 
them. 

Sec.  5.  The  purest  churches  under  heaven  are  subject  both 
to  mixture  and  error ;  and  some  have  so  degenerated  as  to 
become  no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan.  Nev- 
ertheless, there  shall  be  always  a  chm-ch  on  earth  to  worship 
God  according  to  his  will. 


THE   MINISTRY   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

At  the  bottom  of  page  thirty-eight,  and  the  top  of  page 
thirty-nine,  our  author  says,  ha\ang  stated  his  views  on  the 
general  subject  of  the  church,  "  In  this  church  —  or  over  this 
society,  thus  visibly  separated  from  the  world,  and  blessed  with 
the  promise  of  peculiar  privileges, —  the  head  of  the  church 
placed  certain  officers,  with  authority  to  rule  and  govern  it,  and 
with  power  also  to  transmit  their  authority  to  others." 

The  proposition  thus  laid  down,  he  proceeds  to  argue  at 
considerable  length,  and  tenaciously  to  defend,  as  though  it 
were  a  matter  in  dispute  between  us.  He  quotes  from  our 
own  church  standards,  and  from  our  authors,  passages  which 
contain  his  own  doctrine,  and  glories  over  his  quotations  as  if 
he  had  obtained  concessions  from  an  enemy.  In  spite  of  aU 
Presbyterian  authorities,  with  which  he  seems  not  to  be  unfa- 
miliar, he  will  have  it,  that  as  we  do  not  beheve  in  a  divinely 
constituted  church,  so  neither  do  we  believe  in  a  divinely 
appointed  ministry. 

The  Presbyterian  behef  on  the  subject  now  introduced,  is 
truly  expressed  by  the  quotation  which  Mr.  Schuyler  makes  from 
our  confession  of  faith.     I  give  the  quotation  with  explanatory 


30  THE  CHURCH, 

parentheses:  "The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  King  and  Head 
of  his  church,  hath  therein  appointed  a  government,  in  the 
hands  of  church  officers,  distinct  from  the  civil  magistrate. 
To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (that 
is,  of  the  church,)  are  committed,  by  virtue  whereof,  they 
have  power  respectively  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  (that  is,  to 
pronounce  the  unchangeable  conditions  on  which  God  will 
retain  or  remit  sins,)  to  shut  that  kingdom  (that  is,  the 
church)  against  the  impenitent,  both  by  the  word,  and  by 
censures ;  and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners,  by  the  ministry 
of  the  Gospel,  and  by  absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion 
shall  require." —  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  xxx. 

I  may  also  quote  on  the  same  point,  from  chapter  xxv.  of 
the  confession  of  faith,  section  3 :  "  Unto  this  catholic  visible 
church,  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances 
of  God,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this 
life,  to  the  end  of  the  world :  and  doth  by  his  own  presence 
and  spirit)  according  to  his  promise,  make  them  eflfectual 
thereunto." 

We  then  do  believe,  just  as  really  as  Episcopalians,  that "  the 
head  of  the  church  hath  placed  in  the  church  certain  officers 
with  authority  to  rule  and  govern  it."  This  is  no  peculiar 
doctrine  of  theirs,  but  is  our  doctrine  also. 

Neither  is  it  a  pecuhar  doctrine  of  theirs,  that  the  officers 
whom  Christ  placed  in  the  church,  besides  the  authority  which 
they  had  to  rule  and  govern  it,  had  the  "  power  also  to  transmit 
their  authority  to  others." 

The  Presbyterian  belief  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  succeed- 
ing to  the  christian  ministry,  I  can  not  better  state  than  in  the 
words  of  Dr.  McLeod  and  of  Dr.  Mason,  as  also  quoted  in 
substance  by  our  author.     Dr.  Mc  Leod  says : 

"A  person  who  is  not  ordained  to  office  by  a  Presby- 
tery, has  no  right  to  be  received  as  a  minister  of  Christ: 
his  administration  of  ordinances  is  invalid :  no  divine  blessing  is 
promised  upon  his  labors :  it  is  rebellion  against  the  head  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  31 

cliurch  to  support  him  in  his  pretensions:  Christ  has  excluded 
him  in  his  providence  from  admission  through  the  ordinary- 
door,  and  if  he  has  no  evidence  of  miraculous  power  to  testify 
his  extraordinary  mission,  he  is  an  impostor." 

What  vahie  is  to  be  attached  to  Mr.  Schuyler's  comparison 
of  this,  with  the  Episcopal  doctrine  concerning  the  indispensa- 
ble necessity  of  the  imposition  of  a  prelatic  bishop's  hands  to 
give  validity  to  an  ordination,  as  indicating  «qual  "  iUiberality," 
"  bigotry,"  and  "  uncharitableness,"  may  be  easily  ascertained  by 
inquiring  what  the  word  "  presbytery  "  means.  Mr.  Schuyler 
either  ignorantly  thinks,  or  else  artfully  designs,  that  his  readers 
shall  think,  that  by  "  a  presbytery "  m  the  place  quoted,  is 
meant  the  particular  judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
which  bears  that  name,  and  to  which,  according  to  the  consti- 
tution of  our  church,  the  power  of  ordination  among  us  belongs. 
Thus  he  either  thinks,  or  w^ould  have  others  think,  that  Dr, 
McLeod  denied  the  validity  of  all  ordinations  out  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  whether  occurring  among  Episcopalians  or  Bap- 
tists, or  Methodists,  or  whomsoever.  Now  the  truth  is,  that  by  "  a 
presbytery  "  Dr.  McLeod  meant  only  a  plurality  of  presbyters, 
of  duly  ordained  ministers,  of  whatever  christian  denomination ; 
so  that  he  neither  denied,  nor  intended  to  deny,  the  validity  of 
ordinations  in  other  churches,  where  two  or  more  ministei-s  con- 
cur in  the  act.  We  certainly  do  allow  the  validity  of  episcopal 
ordinations,  not  however,  because  of  any  authority  in  the  bishop 
as  such,  but  because  we  recognize  him  as  a  presb}i;er,  and  as 
constituting,  with  the  presbyters  who  unite  with  him  in  lapng 
on  hands  upon  the  candidate,  a  lawful  presbytery. 

We  entirely  approve  of  Dr.  McLeod's  statement,  and  I  do 
not  know  the  Presb}i;erian  who  w^ould  object  to  it.  There  is  a 
regular  and  orderly  way  appointed  by  the  head  of  the  church  for 
coming  into  the  christian  ministry  —  by  presb}i;erial  ordination, 
i.  e.  by  the  ordaining  act  of  two  or  more  previously-ordained 
christian  ministers.  This  is  the  door,  and  "  He  that  entereth 
not  by  the  door,  but  climbeth  up  some  other  way,  the  same  is 


32  THE  CHURCH, 

a  thief  and  a  robber.  But  he  that  entereth  in  by  the  door,  is 
the  shepherd  of  the  sheep." 

The  quotations  from  Dr.  Mason,  which  we  also  give  as 
expressive  of  our  own  sentiments,  and  of  the  sentiments  of 
Presbyterians  generally,  are  as  follows: 

"  It  is  undeniable  that  from  the  time  God  set  up  his  church 
in  her  organized  form,  until  the  christian  dispensation,  there 
was  an  order  of  men  consecrated  by  his  own  appointment,  to 
the  exclusive  w^ork  of  directing  her  worship,  and  presiding  over 
her  interests ;  insomuch,  that  no  one,  but  one  of  themselves,  not 
even  a  crowned  head,  might  meddle  with  their  functions,  nor 
imdertake  in  any  way,  to  be  a  teacher  of  religion,  without  an 
immediate  call  from  heaven,  atte«?ted  by  miraculous  evidence.'^ 
Again,  "Our  Lord  Jesus  dehvered  their  commission  to  his 
apostles,  in  terms  which  necessarily  implied  a  perpetual  and 

REGULARLY  SUCCESSIVE  MINISTRY." 

Not  regarding  the  danger  of  being  charged  with  some  degree 
of  egotism,  I  will  even  quote  from  myself,  in  a  sermon  which  I 
preached  and  published  several  years  ago.  Not  having  a  printed 
copy  of  that  sermon  at  hand,  J  must  be  allowed  to  quote  from 
a  manuscript,  which  I  am  quite  sure  differs  in  no  important 
respect  from  the  printed  copy. 

The  sermon  was  founded  on  2  Oor.  v :  20,  and  the  points 
discussed,  were  —  the  authority,  the  dignity,  and  the  business  of 
the  ministerial  office.  In  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  minis- 
terial office,  I  said, 

"  It  rests  on  a  divine  commission.  God  '  hath  committed 
unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation.  Now  then  we  are  embassa- 
dors for  Christ;'  we,  not  you;  not  any  and  every  man  who 
may  choose  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  functions  of  this  high 
office,  but  we,  to  whom  it  has  been  committed  of  God.  It  may 
be  observed  then,  that  there  is  a  class  of  men  in  the  world, 
exclusively  authorised  to  preach  the  gospel.  It  will  not  be 
questioned  that  the  text,  in  its  connection,  does  teach,  that  this 
exclusive  authority  was  given  to  Paul  and  his  associates.     '  The 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  33 

word  of  reconciliation'  in  the  commencement  of  tlie  new 
dispensation,  was  committed  to  them,  and  not  to  others.  They 
were,  in  a  pecuhar  manner,  called  and  consecrated  thereto,  so 
that  whether  regarded  as  a  privilege  or  a  duty,  the  work  of  the 
ministry  appertained  to  them,  in  distinction  from  all  others  then 
living  in  the  world. 

"  But  these  fii-st  ministei*s  of  Christ  were  to  have  successors  in 
the  ministry.  In  their  official  character,  they  were  never  to  die. 
This  sufficiently  appears  from  the  last  charge,  with  the  accom- 
panying promise,  which  they  received  from  the  Saviour  just 
previous  to  his  ascension :  *  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  lo!  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  This  charge  and  promise 
could  not  have  terminated  on  them  personally.  They  wei-e 
evidently  addressed  in  their  official  character,  as  representing  a 
long  line  of  successors  in  the  same  office,  which  was  to  be 
perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time.  The  language  is  not  intelli- 
gible on  any  other  supposition.  There  is  then,  of  course,  now 
in  the  world,  a  class  of  men  holding  the  same  exclusive  commis- 
sion which  was  given  to  the  fii-st  apostles." 

In  commenting  on  the  last  quotation  from  Dr.  Mason, 
Mr.  Schuyler  says,  page  forty-six,  "  No  assertion  can  be  more 
clear  or  decisive  as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  apostolic 
succession  to  the  valid  exercise  of  ministerial  authority."  Let 
our  brother  now  lay  it  up  in  his  memory,  so  that  it  shall  never 
slip,  that  we  Presbyterians  do  believe  in  an  apostohcal  succes- 
sion. We  do  not  believe  in  the  apostohcal  succession  of  the 
Episcopal,  or  Greek,  or  Romish  churches,  in  an  unbroken  line 
of  prelatic  bishops,  but  we  believe  in  the  true  succession  from 
the  apostles  of  all  true  minister  of  Christ.  We  believe  in  «  a 
perpetual  and  regularly  successive  ministry,"  the  line  of  which, 
in  the  christian  church,  began  with  the  apostles. 

"  The  question  now  comes  up,"  says  our  author,  and  he  states 
it  so  fairly,  that  I  am  quite  willing  he  should  state  it  for  us 
3* 


34  THE   CHURCH, 

both  — "  The  question  now  comes  up,  who  are  the  successors  of 
the  apostles ;  and  who,  therefore,  are  duly  empowered  to  confer 
the  ministerial  commission  ?  The  determination  of  tliis  question 
rests  upon  the  decision  of  the  issue  between  two  systems,  epis- 
copacy, and  parity,  or  the  presbyterian  ministry;  and  by 
presbyterian,  we  mean  all  those  who  hold  to  but  one  order 
in  the  ministry. 

"  The  advocates  of  episcopacy  declare  that  there  are  three 
orders  in  the  ministry,  styled,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  of  whom  the  highest  grade,  or 
bishops  alone,  have  the  power  to  ordain.  The  advocates  of  parity, 
or  equality  in  the  ministry,  declare  that  there  is  but  one  order, 
and  that  all  in  this  order  have  equal  rights. 

"  Let  us  then,"  proceeds  our  author,  "  bring  the  question  of 
parity  or  imparity,  equality  or  inequality,  in  the  orders  of  the 
ministry,  to  the  test  of  scripture." 

It  is  to  the  test  of  scripture,  that  we  Presbyterians  delight, 
above  all  things,  to  bring  this  debated  question.  We  do  not  refuse 
to  discuss  it  before  any  other  tribunal.  V/hen  our  opponents 
appeal  from  scripture  to  the  fathers,  we  are  most  happy  to  go 
with  them  to  the  fathers.  When  they  appeal  again  to  general 
history,  we  are  just  as  ready  to  meet  them  there.  But 
we  have  always  felt  that  this  is  a  question  which  the  scrip- 
tures, and  the  scriptures  alone,  are  fully  competent  to  decide. 
We  acknowledge  no  other  "rule  of  faith  and  practice"  but 
them ;  and,  therefore,  the  word  with  us,  always  has  been — "  to 
the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  Mr.  Schuyler  and  myself  are 
now  to  meet  each  other  in  the  court  of  scripture.  Will  he 
abide  the  decision  of  the  court  ? 

The  determination,  he  says,  of  the  question,  "  who  are  the 
successors  of  the  apostles  ?  rests  upon  the  decision  of  the  issue 
between  two  systems,  episcopacy  and  parity." 

The  question  first  to  be  considered,  then,  relates  to  the  general 
subject  of  the  ministry.  Does  it  consist,  by  divine  appointment, 
of  three  orders,  called  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  with  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  35 

authority  to  ordain  ministers,  vested  solely  in  the  first,  or  is  it 
of  one  order,  commonly,  in  the  scriptm^es,  called  presbyters,  or 
bishops,  all  of  whom  are  equal  in  authority  ? 


FIRST  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT  FOR  EPISCOPACY 

THREE  ORDERS  IN  THE  AARONIC  PRIESTHOOD. 

The  argument  is  thus  stated  by  our  author,  on  page  forty- 
seven  :  "  As  the  law  given  by  Moses  was  a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,  typifying  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  constitution  of  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  would  justify  the  presumption,  at  least,  that 
the  christian  ministry  would  be  after  this  pattern.  We  find  in  the 
Jewish  church  three  distinct  orders  of  ministers — the  high  priest, 
the  priest,  and  Levite.  This  fact,  therefore,  might  reasonably 
lead  us  to  expect  the  like  number  of  grades  in  the  ministry  of 
the  christian  chm-ch." 

The  fact,  of  course,  is  admitted,  that  the  Jewish  priesthood 
was  of  three  orders.  The  question,  therefore,  is,  whether  this 
fact  furnishes,  as  our  author  supposes  it  does,  any  ground  of 
presumption  in  favor  of  a  similar  arrangement  for  the  ministry 
of  the  christian  church.  The  ground  of  presumption,  according 
to  his  statement,  and  his  statement  is  like  that  of  all  Episcopal 
writers,  lies  in  the  typical  character  of  the  Mosaic  system,  and 
the  assumed  conclusion  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  typical 
of  the  christian  ministry. 

In  regard  to  the  typical  character  of  the  Jewish  system  there 
is  no  dispute.  We  are  expressly  told,  that  "  the  law  had  a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come."  But  the  assumed  conclusion 
of  Episcopalians,  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  typical  of  the 
christian  ministry,  is  without  foundation,  and  contrary  both  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  to  scripture. 

The  important  facts  in  the  case  are  two :  First,  The  Jewish 
priesthood  did  not  resemble  any  existing  ministry  of  any  so-called 


36  THE  CHURCH, 

christian  cliurcli.  If  it  was  a  type,  or  foreshadowing,  as  is 
claimed,  of  the  christian  ministry,  it  has  failed.  It  will  not  of 
course  be  pretended,  that  the  ministry  of  the  Romish  church 
with  its  grades  many,  consisting  of  I  know  not  what  all,  sub- 
deacons,  deacons,  priests,  bishops,  cardinals,  and  a  pope,  was 
typified  by  the  Jewish  priesthood.  For  a  similar  reason,  it  will 
not  be  pretended  that  the  ministry  of  the  Greek  church  was 
typified  by  that  of  the  Jewish.  How  stands  the  case  with  the 
Episcopal  church  in  England,  with  its  earthly  head  seated  upon 
the  throne,  and  its  primate,  its  archbishops,  its  bishops,  its 
priests,  its  archdeacons,  its  deacons,  etc.,  etc.  ?  It  may  be  said, 
however,  that  the  actual  grades  of  the  ministry  in  the  church 
of  England  are  only  three,  and  that  all  above  bishops,  are  still 
mere  bishops,  appointed  to  the  discharge,  not  of  higher  minis- 
terial duties,  but  of  higher  governmental  functions.  Take,  then, 
the  Episcopal  church  as  it  exists  in  this  country,  with  its  three 
simple  orders,  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  Now  suppose 
the  shadow  of  this  ministry  to  be  cast  back  into  the  ancient 
times  of  Jewry,  and  there  let  us  search  for  it.  We  find  the 
clear  shadows  of  many  things  that  we  recognise  as  actual  sub- 
stances of  our  own  more  happy  dispensation,  and  at  first,  we 
may  almost  imagine  that  we  see  the  shadow  of  this  threefold 
ministry  in  the  ministry  of  the  Jewish  church.  The  many 
Levites  may  pass  for  the  shadow  of  the  many  deacons;  the 
many  Jewish  priests  may  pass  for  the  shadow  of  the  many 
episcopal  priests ;  but  here  the  correspondence  ceases ;  the  one 
high-priest  can  not  be  the  shadow  of  the  many  episcopal 
bishops.  A  plurality  of  substances  must  have  a  plurality  of 
shadows.  Our  first  impression,  therefore,  was  not  well  founded ; 
and  the  Jewish  priesthood  is  not  the  shadow  of  the  episcopal 
christian  ministry.  I  grant,  that  a  shadow  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  a  substance ;  and  we  are  not  to  expect  a  perfect 
correspondence  in  all  things ;  we  are  not  to  expect  that  it  will  be 
ponderable,  for  examj^le ;  but  we  are  nevertheless  to  expect  a 
correspondence,  such  as  that  which  shadows  always  bear  to  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  37 

substances  which  cast  them.  It  is  claimed,  in  order  to  get  the 
ground  of  presumption  of  which  our  author  speaks,  that  the 
Jewish  high  priest  was  a  type  or  shadow  of  the  order  of  bishops 
in  the  christian  church.  "We  reply  that  the  resemblance  is  not 
adequate  to  sustain  the  claim.  One  could  not  be  the  type  or 
shadow  of  many.  No,  our  opponents  may  say,  we  do  not  claim 
that ;  but  simply  that  the  tripartite  form  of  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood was  a  type  or  shadow  of  the  tripartite  form  of  the 
christian  ministry.  That  is,  they  claim,  not  that  the  one  min- 
istry was  a  type  of  the  other,  but  that  a  mere  accident,  or 
quality  of  the  one,  was  the  type  of  a  mere  accident  or  quality 
of  the  other.  This  is  absurd,  for  if  the  one  ministry  was  not 
itself  the  type  of  the  other,  by  what  right,  or  by  what  sugges- 
tion even,  do  they  look  in  it  for  typical  accidents  or  quahties  ? 
They  might  as  well,  in  such  a  case,  infer  the  tripartite  form  of 
the  christian  ministry  from  the  triune  existence  of  God,  or  from 
the  threefold  nature  of  any  subject  whatever. 

The  second  important  fact  to  be  considered,  showing  that  the 
Jewish  priesthood  could  not  have  been  a  type  of  the  christian 
ministry,  is  the  entire  unlikeness  of  the  business  or  work  of  one, 
to  that  of  the  other.  The  Jewish  priesthood  ministered  at  the 
altar  of  sacrifice ;  their  ministry  consisted  in  offering  sacrifices 
and  burnt  offerings  unto  God,  for  themselves  and  for  the  people. 
That  they  preached,  we  never  read.  Their  whole  work,  in  what 
was  properly  the  ministry  of  religion,  had  respect  more  or  less 
directly  to  the  offering  of  sacrifices.  The  Levites  were  subor- 
dinate assistants  of  the  priests  in  this  work ;  and  to  the  high 
priest,  who  had  the  supreme  administration  of  sacred  things, 
appertained  the  duty,  above  all,  of  entering  once  a  year  into 
the  most  holy  place  "  to  make  atonement  for  himself,  and  for 
his  household,  and  for  all  the  congregation  of  Israel." 

The  business  of  the  christian  ministry  is  epitomized  in  the 
command  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature."  And  again ;  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 


38  •  THE  CHURCH, 

Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all . 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 

Now  it  is  quite  enough  to  submit  the  question  to  any  un- 
biassed mind,  whether  such  a  ministry  as  that  which  existed  in 
the  Jewish  church,  could  be  typical  of  that  which  exists  in  the 
church  of  Christ  ?  To  say  nothing  of  the  want  of  resemblance 
in  other  respects,  there  is  none  whatever  in  the  business  of  the 
one  to  the  business  of  the  other.  So  far  as  this  is  concerned,  it 
might  just  as  well  be  said,  that  the  Jewish  king,  with  his  chief 
ministers  and  next  subordinate  officers  in  the  government,  were 
typical  of  the  christian  ministry. 

But  the  scriptures  settle  this  question,  by  distinctly  apprising 
us  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  t}^)ical  of  Christ,  not  as  to  its 
grades  and  threefold  character,  but  as  to  its  work.  This  ques- 
tion on  scriptural  grounds  is  settled  definitely  by  the  following 
passage :  Heb.  x :  1  -  V,  "  For  the  law  having  a  shadoAv  of 
good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  can 
never  with  those  sacrifices  which  they  offered,  year  by  year, 
continually,  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect.  For  then 
would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered  ?  because  that  the 
worshipers  once  purged  should  have  had  no  more  conscience  of 
sins.  But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance  again 
made  of  sins  every  year.  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sins.  Wherefore  when  he, 
{i.  e.  Christ,)  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith,  sacrifices  and  offer- 
ings thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me.  In 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  for  sins  thou  hast  had  no  pleasure. 
Then  said  I,  lo,  I  come  (in  the  volume  of  the  book,  it  is  written 
of  me)  to  do  thy  will,  0  God." 

If  it  is  said,  that  this  teaches  that  the  sacrifices  offered  under 
the  former  dispensation  were  tj^^ical  of  Christ,  I  reply  —  no; 
the  sacrifices  offered  under  the  former  dispensation  were  typi- 
cal of  Christ's  bodi/.  "  When  he,  that  is,  Christ,  cometh  into 
the  world,  he  saith,  sacrifices  and  oflTerings  thou  wouldest  not, 
but  a  bodi/  hast  thou  prepared  me."     The  body  of  Christ  which 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  39 

he  offered  upon  the  cross  was  the  antitype  of  bulls  and  goats 
offered  under  the  law,  whose  blood  could  never  take  away  sins. 
Christ  himself  was  the  priest,  the  offerer,  and  he  was  the  anti- 
type of  the  ancient  offerer  of  bulls  and  goats.  If  it  is  insisted 
that  the  ancient  sacrifices  were  typical  of  Christ  himself,  the 
third  person  in  the  Godhead,  in  his  work  of  redemption,  then 
we  still  affirm  that  the  offerers  of  those  ancient  sacrifices  were 
typical  also  of  him ;  for,  if  himself  was  the  offering,  himself  also 
was  the  priestly  offerer.  —  See  Heb.  vii:  27  —  "Who  needeth 
not  daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his 
own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's ;  for  this  he  did  once,  when 
he  offered  up  himself P 

If  it  shall  be  said  that  only  the  high  priest  was  a  type  of 
Christ,  then,  in  that  case,  we  ask  what  becomes  of  the  ancient 
type  of  episcopal  bishops  ?  It  may  possibly  be  said,  with  some 
show  of  reason,  that  the  high  priest  was  the  especial  type  of 
Christ's  person;  but  as  to  his  ivork,  it  must  still  be  admitted 
that  the  whole  Jewish  priesthood,  whose  business  it  was  to 
offer  sacrifices,  was  typical  of  him;  and  typical  of  none  but 
him,  unless  you  adopt  the  absurdities  of  the  Romish  church 
respecting  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 

Other  scriptures,  besides  those  which  I  have  quoted,  might 
be  adduced,  equally  in  point,  to  show  that  in  the  person  and 
work  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  whole  antitype  is  found  of  the 
priesthood  in  the  Mosaic  system,  but  it  is  needless. 

Now  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  ground  of  presump- 
tion ;  —  of  his  basis  in  the  Jewish  priesthood,  of  a  reasonable 
expectation  that  there  should  be  three  grades  or  ranks  in  the 
ministry  of  the  christian  church  ?  The  Jewish  priesthood  was 
not  t}^ical,  or  figurative,  in  any  sense,  of  the  christian  ministry. 
Nothing,  therefore,  respecting  the  latter,  can  be  inferred  from 
the  former. 

With  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  obtained  "an  unchangeable 
pi'iesthood,"  being  "  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchis- 
edek,"  the  entire  order  of  an  earthly  priesthood  has  passed 


40  THE  CHURCH, 

away.  Priests,  the  work  of  wliose  office  was  to  offer  sacrifices, 
there  are  no  more ;  —  save  him  who  with  his  "  one  sacrifice  of 
himself,"  "  offered  once  for  all,"  is  "  entered  not  into  the  holy- 
places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true ;  but 
into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us." 
The  ministry  in  the  church  of  God  now,  is  another  thing.  In 
this  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  it  is  a  ministry,  not  of  blood, 
but  of  "the  word  of  reconciliation," —  a  ministry  of  grace  and 
salvation  to  dying  men,  by  preaching^  by  proclaiming  to  them 
the  glorious  messages  of  divine  love  and  mercy  through  the 
cross.  Wliat  has  this  ministry  to  do  with  the  ministry  of  the 
law  of  Moses  ? 

I  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  be  somewhat  full  in  my  reply 
to  this  argument ;  not  because  the  argument  is  really  important, 
or  because  intelligent  Episcopalians  lay  much  stress  upon  it, 
but  because  it  is  in  a  high  degree  sophistical  and  specious,  and 
has  great  weight  with  ordinary  minds. 


THE    SECOND    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT    FOR 
EPISCOPACY. 

THE    CONSECRATION    OF    CHRIST,  AND    HIS    ORDINATION    OF    THE 
TWELVE    AND    OF    THE    SEVENTY. 

Mr.  Schuyler  having  stated  his  ground  of  presumption  for 
three  orders  in  the  christian  ministry,  which  we  have  shown  to 
be  no  ground  of  presumption,  thus  proceeds,  page  forty-seven : 

"  This  fact,  therefore,  might  reasonably  lead  us  to  expect  the 
like  number  of  grades  in  the  ministry  of  the  christian  church. 
Hence,  we  find,  in  looking  into  the  gospel  history,  that  such 
was  the  case.  After  our  Saviour  had  arrived  at  the  proper  age, 
according  to  the  Jewish  law,  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the 
ministry,  we  have  the  record  of  his  visible  consecration  to  this 
holy  office.  Immediately  after  his  baptism,  he  is  anointed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;  while  the  eternal  father  acknowledges  his 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  41 

authority,  saying,  "  This  is  my  beloved  son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased." 

Passing  by,  for  the  present,  a  quotation  here  introduced 
from  archbishop  Potter,  I  proceed,  giving  the  words  of  our 
author  — 

"  Here  then,  we  have  the  history  of  the  inauguration  of  our 
blessed  Saviour  into  the  office  of  his  earthly  ministry,  by  a 
visible  consecration,  attested  by  a  voice  from  heaven.  In  the 
order  of  the  narrative,  after  this  solemn  consecration,  and  after  he 
had  been  prepared,  as  man,  by  fasting,  and  by  forty  days  of 
temptation  in  the  wilderness,  to  enter  upon  his  ministry  and  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  his  spiritual  kingdom,  we  are  told,  *  He 
chose  twelve  disciples,'  and  after  a  whole  night  spent  upon  the 
mountain  in  prayer,  '  He  ordained  twelve  that  they  should  be 
with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach.'  And 
here  we  would  remark,  that  on  two  other  distinct  occasions,  the 
ministerial  powers  of  the  apostles  were  enlarged  by  the  Saviour, 
thus  taking  them  up  step  by  step.  And  sometime  after  this,  we 
read,  our  Lord  appointed  seventy  disciples,  and  sent  them  forth 
to  preach  and  prepare  the  way  for  himself  and  the  apostles. 

"  Here  then  we  have,  while  our  blessed  Lord  was  upon  earth, 
three  distinct  orders  in  the  ministry.  The  Great  High  Priest 
of  our  profession,  the  twelve  apostles,  and  the  seventy  disciples. 
I  know  it  is  confidently  asked  in  this  stage  of  the  church's 
history," — Dr.  Thompson's  sermon,  page  sixteen — "*will  you 
find  here  any  traces  of  a  prelatic  order  exercising  authority 
over  two  other  orders  ? '  What  —  I  would  ask  in  return, — was 
the  office  which  our  Lord  himself  held  ?  Was  it  not  that  of  a 
prelatic  or  preferred  order,  exercising  authority  over  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  the  seventy  disciples  ?  Have  we  not,  by  the  one 
question,  satisfactorily  answered  the  other  ? " 

Perhaps,  my  dear  brother,  you  have  by  the  one  question 
answered  the  other,  satisfactorily  to  your  mind ;  but  to  my 
mind,  and  I  will  venture  to  say  to  the  minds  of  your  thoughtful 
readers  without  an  exception,  you  have  not  answered  the  other 


42  THE  CHURCH, 

question  at  all.  To  my  question,  "Will  you  find  here  any 
trace  of  a  prelatic  order,  exercising  authority  over  two  other 
orders  ? "  you  reply,  "  What,  I  would  ask  in  return,  was  the  office 
which  our  Lord  himself  held  ?  was  it  not  that  of  a  prelatic,  or 
preferred  order  ? "  &c.,  &c.  You  affirm,  then,  that  Christ  was 
a  minister,  in  that  sense  of  the  word  which  it  bears  in  our 
present  discussion !  You  affirm  that  Christ  held  "  the  office  — 
of  a  prelatic,  or  preferred  order,"  in  the  ministry  of  his  own 
church !  What  proof  have  you  given  of  this  ?  None  at  all, 
except  your  narration  of  his  baptism,  and  the  solemn  testimony, 
on  that  occasion,  of  the  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  "  This  is  my 
beloved  son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased," — which  you  call  his 
"  inauguration  into  the  office  of  his  earthly  ministry,  by  a 
visible  consecration."  You  assume  that  "the  office  of  his 
earthly  ministry  "  was  the  ordinary  office  of  a  minister  in  his 
own  church.  Let  me  refer  you,  for  instruction,  and  I  am 
inclined  to  add,  reproof,  to  your  own  quotation  on  this  very 
point,  from  archbishop  Potter.  The  archbishop  says,  referring 
to  the  same  baptismal  scene — "  This  was  a  solemn  inaugura- 
tion to  his  office;  for  the  more  full  understanding  whereof,  it 
may  be  remembered,  that  under  the  Jewish  economy,  the  kings, 
priests,  and  prophets  were  inaugurated  to  their  several  offices 
by  unction,  and  when  the  person  appointed  to  succeed  in  any 
of  these  offices,  had  no  approved  right  to  it  by  lineal  descent, 
or  otherwise,  his  designation  was  commonly  declared  by  some 
of  the  prophets :  as  appears  from  the  examples  of  Saul,  David, 
Jehu,  Aaron,  and  Elisha.  Answerable  to  this  custom,  our 
blessed  Saviour's  designation  to  his  mediatorial  office,  in  which 
all  the  three  forementioned  offices  of  king,  priest,  and  prophet 
are  contained,  was  not  only  attested  by  John  the  Baptist,  the 
greatest  of  all  the  prophets,  but  by  the  voice  of  God  himself, 
speaking  from  heaven." 

What,  then,  according  to  archbishop  Potter,  your  own  au- 
thority, was  the  office  to  which  Christ  was  consecrated  by  bap- 
tism ?     You  say,  it  was  to  "  the  office  of  a  prelatic  order  "  in 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  43 

the  ministry  of  his  owii  church.  The  archbishop  says,  it  was 
"  to  his  mediatorial  office."  Are  the  two  offices  identical  ?  Now 
the  archbishop  was  right.  Christ  was  formally  consecrated  by 
baptism  and  the  voice  from  heaven  to  his  great  work  as  atoning 
priest  and  saviour  of  his  people.  He  was  visibly  assuming  that 
"  unchangeable  priesthood,"  which  was  shadowed  forth  in  the 
priesthood  of  the  Jewish  economy,  and  it  became  him  for  the 
fulfillment  of  all  righteousness  to  be  set  apart  thereto  by  august 
rites  and  ceremonies;  therefore  he  came  to  John,  who  was 
commissioned  of  God  to  bear  witness  of  him,  and  was  baptized. 

That  same  office  into  which  Christ  was  formally  inaugurated 
at  his  baptism,  he  sustains  now.  If  it  was  "  the  office  of  a  pre- 
latic  order  "  in  the  ministry  of  his  own  church,  then  he  sustains 
now  "  the  office  of  a  prelatic  order  "  in  the  ministry  of  his  own 
church ;  and  he  whom  we  are  taught  to  regard  as  "  head  over 
all  things  to  the  church,"  is  a  minister  in  it.  Then,  also,  unless 
bishops  are  Christ's  equals,  in  the  ministry  of  the  church,  —  for 
it  is  a  doctrine  of  our  opponents,  that  all  bishops  are  equal  in 
the  grade  of  their  ministry,  —  there  are  four  instead  of  three 
orders  of  ministers  in  the  church. 

Sir,  I  must  admonish  you  that  in  your  zeal  to  find,  at  this 
point  of  gospel  history,  "traces  of  a  prelatic  order,"  you  are 
taking  fearful  liberties  with  the  character  and  official  work  of 
him  whom  I  know  you  venerate,  not  as  a  minister  in  the 
church  of  which  you  also  are  a  minister,  but  as  its  head  and 
Lord ;  and  that,  instead  of  confirming  your  argument,  you  are 
disturbing  its  very  foundations. 

My  brother's  argument,  which  I  am  now  considering,  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  bare  assumption  of  two  other  facts.  First,  he 
assumes  that  the  christian  church  had  an  existence  at  the  time 
when  the  events  referred  to  in  his  argument  transpired.  Now, 
if  it  could  be  proved  that  at  this  time  the  church  of  the  new 
dispensation  had  not  yet  begun  to  exist,  then  of  course,  not  only 
was  Christ  no  minister  in  it,  but  neither  were  the  twelve  or  the 
seventy  ministers  in  it,  and  there  is  no  argument  whatever,  save 


44  THE  CHURCH, 

a  mere  presumptive  one,  of  the  same  general  character  with  that 
which  has  aheady  been  disposed  of,  to  be  constructed  from  the 
comparative  dignity  of  the  three  parties  referred  to,  be  it  what 
it  might  be.  Mr.  Schuyler  himself  says  in  a  note,  in  which, 
indeed,  he  gives  up  the  whole  argument  as  worthless,  — "  we 
conceive  it,  however,  to  be  a  matter  of  minor  importance,  whe- 
ther the  distinction  of  the  three  orders  is  as  clearly  marked  here, 
as  in  the  subsequent  history.  The  church  was  evidently/  (if 
I  may  use  the  expression)  in  a  transition  state,  and  was  not 
fully  organized  until  sometime  after  thisP  The  church  in  a 
transition  state !  What  kind  of  a  state  was  that  ?  In  one  sense 
the  church  of  God  has  always  been  in  a  transition  state,  and 
will  always  be,  until  it  shall  become  "  a  glorious  church,  not 
having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ; "  but  in  no  other 
sense  can  I  conceive  of  it  as  being  in  a  transition  state.  The 
christian  church  either  existed,  or  it  did  not,  at  the  time  when 
our  Lord  called  and  ordained  the  twelve  and  the  seventy.  If 
it  did  not  exist,  then,  in  the  state  of  things  at  that  time,  nothing 
can  be  gathered  to  indicate  what  its  character  was  to  be ;  much 
less  can  the  facts  of  that  time  be  reasoned  about  as  if  they  ap- 
pertained to  the  very  church  itself  and  characterized  it.  The 
new  dispensation,  it  is  supposed  by  some,  began  when  the  vail 
of  the  temple  was  rent  at  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  when  he 
cried  out  "  It  is  finished,  and  bowed  his  head  and  gave  up  the 
ghost."  Others  suppose  it  began  at  his  resurrection;  and 
others,  at  the  giving  of  the  spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
Whenever  the  new  dispensation  began,  then  the  Jewish  church 
ceased  to  be  a  church,  and  the  church  of  the  Redeemer  com- 
menced its  existence.  Now  it  was  important,  certainly,  if  Mr. 
Schuyler  would  make  use  of  facts  existing  at  an  earlier  date 
than  either  of  the  dates  which  I  have  mentioned,  as  character- 
izing the  christian  church,  that  he  should  at  least  show  us  that 
the  christian  church  was  in  being  at  that  time. 

The  other  fact,  essential  to  my  brother's  argument,  (upon 
which  indeed,  like  that  of  Christ's  being  a  minister,  holding 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  45 

"  the  office  of  a  prelatic  order,"  his  argument  is  founded,)  which 
he  has  assumed  without  proof,  is,  that  the  seventy,  in  the  office 
which  our  Lord  assigned  to  them  preparatory  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  his  kingdom,  and  the  setting  up  of  his  church,  were 
inferior  to  the  twelve.  That  the  twelve  were  designed,  ultimately, 
to  occupy  a  peculiar  and  superior  position;  that  the  Saviour 
intended  to  employ  them,  when  his  kingdom  should  be  set  up,  in 
an  office  of  pecuhar  and  eminent  importance  and  dignity,  no  one, 
I  presume,  feels  any  inclination  to  deny.  Hence,  he  appointed 
them  to  be  "  with  him,"  to  be,  as  it  were,  members  of  his  own 
family,  that  he  might  instruct  them,  and  in  various  ways  train 
them  for  that  future  service  which  they  were  destined  to  perform, 
and  that  they  might  be  witnesses  to  the  world  after  his  death, 
of  what  he  said,  and  did,  and  suffered.  But,  as  to  their  grade  of 
office  prior  to  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom,  at  the  time  when 
in  this  argument^  Mr.  Schuyler  finds  his  three  separate  and 
distinct  orders,  and  subsequently, — what  evidence  is  there,  that 
it  was  superior  to  that  of  the  seventy  ?  The  fact  of  their  being 
chosen  first,  proves  nothing  ;  for  that  would  go  just  as  far  to 
prove  graduation  of  rank  among  themselves,  according  to  the 
order,  in  time,  of  their  several  callings.  The  fact  that  they 
were  appointed  to  be,  as  a  general  thing,  with  Christy  and 
attendants  on  his  person,  proves  nothing;  for  we  see  another 
and  a  sufficient  reason  for  that  arrangement. 

Mr.  Schuyler  seems  to  think,  and  this  is  his  entire  argument, 
that  the  superiority  of  the  twelve  is  indicated,  first,  by  some 
peculiar  solemnity  in  our  Lord's  manner  in  connection  with 
their  call  and  ordination ;  and  secondly,  by  the  fact  that  he  is 
said  to  have  ordained  them,  while  it  is  only  said  that  he 
appointed  the  seventy.  In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  conside- 
rations, it  was  not  so  unusual  a  thing  for  Christ  to  spend  whole 
nights  in  prayer,  that  we  must  necessarily  conclude,  when  he 
did  so,  that  it  was  preparatory  to  some  remarkable  transaction 
in  which  he  was  about  to  be  engaged.  If  Christ  did  spend  a 
whole  night  in  prayer  just  previous  to  ordaining  the  twelve, 


46  THE  CHURCH, 

who  knows  that  his  prayerfulness  had  special  relation  to  that 
event?  Our  author  mentions  in  this  same  connection,  the 
"  fasting,  and  forty  days  of  temptation  in  the  wilderness,"  as 
though  this  had  some  preparatory  reference  to  the  call  and 
ordaining  of  the  twelve.  It  had  doubtless  just  the  same  pre- 
paratory reference  to  these  acts  that  it  had  to  all  the  other  acts 
of  his  public  ministry  —  not  ministry  in  the  church,  in  the  office 
of  a  prelatic  order  —  no  more  and  no  less. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Schuyler's  second  argument,  which  with  a 
singular  force  of  brevity,  he  expresses  by  capitalizing  the  word 
"ordain,"  I  have  only  to  say,  that  if  he  will  compare  the 
Greek  word  from  which  this  word  ordain  is  translated,  with 
that  which  is  rendered  "  appointed "  in  the  account  of  the 
seventy,  he  will  find  that  the  argument  amounts  to  nothing. 
That  word  "  ordain "  is  full  of  expression  to  my  brother's 
mind.  The  Greek  word  is  epoiese,  from  poieo,  which,  according 
to  the  best  lexicographers,  means  "  to  make,  to  constitute,  to 
appoint,  as  to  some  office,  to  declare  to  be,"  etc.,  etc.  The 
Greek  work  rendered  "  appointed,"  is  "  anedeixen  "  from  "  ana- 
deiJcnumi^''  which,  the  best  lexicographers  say,  means  "to 
manifest,  to  show  plainly  or  openly,  to  mark  out,  to  constitute, 
to  appoint  by  some  outward  sign,"  etc.,  etc. 

Neither  of  these  words  is  the  one  commonly  used  to  express 
the  act  of  ordination  to  the  christian  ministry.  For  examples : 
Tit.  i :  5 — "  That  thou  shouldst  ordain  (katasteses)  elders  in 
every  city."  Again  ;  Acts  xiv :  23 — "  When  they  had  ordained 
{cheirotones antes)  them  elders  in  every  church,"  etc. 

I  will  give  now  the  positive  proof  that  the  twelve  and  the 
seventy,  in  that  peculiar  ministry  to  which  they  were  called  and 
ordained,  (for  the  seventy  were  just  as  truly  ordained  as  the 
twelve,)  were  equal.  The  proof  which  I  have  to  adduce,  is  of 
no  doubtful  character ;  it  does  not  depend  upon  an  imaginary 
meaning  of  certain  woxls,  nor  upon  any  fanciful  construction 
put  upon  portions  of  the  gospel  history ;  but  upon  plain  and 
undeniable  matters  of  fact,  touching   the  very  heart  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  47 

question  in  debate.  Every  person  can  see  tliat  the  proper  and 
only  proper  way  to  settle  sucli  a  question  as  this,  is  to  examine 
the  commissions  of  these  two  sets  of  ministers,  if  so  they  may 
be  called,  to  see  what  they  were  appointed  to  do,  and  with 
what  powers  they  were  invested.  If  we  find  that  their  com- 
missions were  the  same,  their  work  the  same,  their  authority 
and  power  the  same,  then  it  is  preposterous  to  say  that  they 
were  unequal  in  their  offices. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  both  the 
twelve  and  the  seventy  were  called  and  ordained  to  their  work 
by  Christ  himself. —  Compare  Mark  iii:  14,  "And  he  ordained 
(i.  e.  appointed)  twelve  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that 
he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach,"  with  Luke  x:  1,  "After 
these  things,  the  Lord  appointed  [i.  e.  ordained)  other  seventy 
also." 

Both  the  twelve  and  the  seventy  were  sent  forth  to  preach. — 
Matt.  X :  5,  7,  "  These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded 
them,  saying,"  *  *  *  "  as  ye  go,  preach."  Compare  this 
with  the  whole  account  in  the  first  seventeen  verses  of  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Luke. 

Both  the  twelve  and  the  seventy  were  sent  forth  two  by  two. — 
Mark  vi :  7,  "And  he  called  unto  him  the  twelve,  and  began 
to  send  them  forth  two  by  two."  Luke  x:  1, — "The  Lord 
appointed  other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two  by  two  before 
his  face." 

They  were  sent  into  the  same  dangers. — Matt,  x :  1 6,  Christ 
said  to  the  twelve,  "  Behold  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  among 
wolves :  be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents  and  harailess  as  doves." 
To  the  seventy,  Christ  said,  Luke  x:  3, — "Go  your  ways; 
behold  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  among  wolves." 

The  twelve  and  the  seventy  were  commissioned  to  preach  the 
same  thing.  To  the  former,  the  Lord  said.  Matt,  x :  V,  "And  as 
ye  go,  preach,  saying,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  To 
the  latter  he  said, —  Luke  x :  9, —  "And  say  unto  them,  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  come  nigh  unto  you." 


48  THE  CHURCH, 

Both  the  twelve  and  the  seventy  were  empowered  to  work 
miracles. —  Matt,  x :  8.  To  the  twelve  Christ  said,  "  Heal  the 
sick,  cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the  dead,  cast  out  devils :  freely  ye 
have  received,  freely  give."  Compare  Luke  x:  l7, 19, —  "And 
the  seventy  returned  again  with  joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the 
devils  are  subject  unto  us  through  thy  name."  "  Behold  I  give 
unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over 
all  the  power  of  the  enemy,  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means 
hurt  you." 

They  were  both  sent  fortji  by  the  authority,  and  in  the  name 
of  Christ. —  Matt,  x :  40.  To  the  twelve  Christ  said,  "  He  that 
receiveth  you  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth 
him  that  sent  me."  Compare  Luke  x:  16, —  To  the  seventy 
Christ  said,  "he  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  and  he  that 
despiseth  you  despiseth  me :  and  he  that  despiseth  me,  despiseth 
him  that  sent  me." 

Now  in  what  respect  do  the  seventy  appear  to  have  been 
inferior  to  the  twelve  ?  In  not  a  solitary  particular  can  a  differ- 
ence be  shown.  Their  ministries  were  precisely  identical.  Says 
Whitby,  an  eminent  Episcopalian  commentator,  vol.  i,  page 
334,  "  Some  compare  the  bishops  to  the  apostles,  the  seventy 
to  the  presbyters  of  the  church,  and  thence  conclude,  the  divers 
orders  in  the  ministry  were  instituted  by  Christ  himself.  It 
must  be  granted  that  some  of  the  ancients  chd  believe  these  two 
to  be  divers  orders,  and  that  those  of  the  seventy  were  infei-ior 
'to  the  order  of  the  apostles,  and  sometimes  they  make  the  com- 
parison here  mentioned.  But  then  it  must  be  also  granted, 
that  this  comparison  will  not  strictly  hold;  for  the  seventy 
received  not  their  commission,  as  presbyters  do,  from  bishops, 
but  immediately  from  the  Lord  Christ,  as  well  as  the  apostles, 
and  in  their  first  mission  were  ijlainly  sent  on  the  same  errand, 
and  with  the  same  'powerV 

"  The  fact  is,"  says  Rev.  W.  D.  Killen,  in  the  '  Plea  for  Pres- 
bytery,' "  the  commission  given  at  this  time  both  to  the  twelve 
and  the  seventy,  was  temporary.      They  were  sent  out  for  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  49 

limited  time,  and  for  the  special  purpose  of  preparing  the  way 
for  the  personal  ministry  of  our  Lord.  A  new  commission  was 
given  to  the  twelve  after  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead  — 
more  extensive  powei«  were  bestowed,  and  a  wider  field  of  labor 
was  assigned  to  them.  All  the  information  we  have  regarding 
the  seventy,  is  contained  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  gospel  of 
Luke.  After  they  returned  to  their  Lord  on  this  occasion,  we 
do  not  read  of  them  again  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  do  we 
hear  that  their  temporary  commission  was  ever  reneAved," 

Now  I  claim  that  this  second  argument  from  scripture  in 
favor  of  episcopacy,  is  refuted.  There  is  no  foundation  for  it. 
It  is  a  mere  imagination  of  prelacy-hunters,  that  makes  three 
orders  of  the  christian  ministry  out  of  our  Lord,  the  twelve,  and 
the  seventy.  The  christian  ministry  had  as  yet  no  existence, 
for  there  was  no  christian  church.  If  there  had  been,  it  is 
absurd,  and  almost  impious,  to  make  Christ  himself^  whose  the 
church  is,  and  whose  the  ministry  is,  a  minister  in  it ;  to  assign 
to  him  "  the  office  of  a  prelatic  order."  And  there  is  no  pretext 
for  the  claim,  whatever  may  have  been  the  nature  of  their 
offices,  that  the  seventy  were  inferior  to  the  twelve. 

So  far  as  there  is  any  argument  at  all  bearing  on  the  general 
subject  we  are  now  discussing,  in  the  state  of  things  which 
existed  previous  to  our  Lord's  death,  it  is  in  our  favor,  and 
directly  against  our  opponents.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
here  upon  the  earth  preparing  the  way  for  the  introduction  of 
his  kingdom,  the  setting  up  of  "  his  church."  In  this  prepara- 
tory work  he  employed  a  certain  number  of  ministers,  who, 
upon  the  minutest  inspection,  appear  to  have  been  appointed 
to  identically  the  same  work,  and  to  have  been  clothed  with 
identically  the  same  powers.  They  were  therefore  equal. 
Among  the  ministers  employed  by  our  Lord  in  this  preparatory 
stage  of  his  proceedings,  the  principle  of  'parity  obtained.  We 
may  conclude,  therefore,  so  far  as  Ave  may  conclude  at  all  from 
this,  that  it  was  his  design,  that  in  his  kingdom,  which  is  his 
church,  there  should  be  but  one  grade  of  ministers. 
4 


50  THE  CHURCH, 

THE    THIRD    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT    FOR 
EPISCOPACY. 

A    SECOND    ORDER     IN    THE     CHRISTIAN     MINISTRY    CONSTITUTED 
BY    THE    APPOINTMENT    OF    DEACONS. 

Our  aiitlior  states  his  argument,  on  page  fifty,  as  follows: 
"  Let  us  now  see,  whether,  after  Christ's  ascension  to  heaven, 
and  when  the  apostles  were  left,  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  carry  out  the  instructions  of  their  divine  master 
as  to  his  earthly  kingdom,  they  continued  these  three  orders  in 
the  church." —  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  by  the  reader,  that  no 
christian  church  had  been  in  existence  until  the  time  to  which 
this  argument  introduces  us,  and  consequently,  that  there  could 
have  been  no  orders  in  the  christian  ministry.  Besides,  we 
have  shown  that  the  ministers  whom  Christ  had  employed  in 
the  work  preparatory  to  the  setting  up  of  his  church  were  all 
equal.  Our  author  continues  —  "  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  when  the 
number  of  believers  had  greatly  increased,  we  have  an  account 
of  the  first  ordination  which  they  held.  Now,  this  is  a  transac- 
tion which  we  would  not  have  you  carelessly  to  pass  over. 
After  directing  their  brethren  to  choose  seven  men  among  them 
of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  to  serve 
in  the  office  of  deacons  in  the  church,  the  sacred  historian  de- 
clares, '  They  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and 
Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch; 
whom  they  set  before  the  apostles :  and  when  they  had  prayed, 
they  laid  hands  on  them.'  Now,  in  answer  to  the  objection 
that  is  sometimes  made,  that  this  was  not  an  ordination  to  the 
ministry^  these  men  having  been  simply  chosen  to  serve  tables, 
we  would  ask,  why  the  care  to  choose  men  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  of  wisdom,  to  act  in  the  capacity  of  mere  table 
stewards?      But  the  subsequent  history   proves,  beyond   all 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  51 

controversy,  that  these  men  were  ordained  for  a  higher  and 
hoher  pui*pose.  Immediately  after  this  account,  we  find 
Stephen,  one  of  the  deacons,  boldly  preaching  the  faith,  and 
suffering  martyrdom  in  this  blessed  work.  And  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  Acts,  it  is  recorded,  that  Phihp,  another  of  the  dea- 
cons, went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  preached  Christ 
unto  them ;  and  that  '  when  they  believed  Phihp,  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  were  baptized^  both  men  and  women ; '  and  also, 
that  having  preached  Jesus  to  the  Ethiopean  eunuch,  he  bap- 
tized him.  What  better  proof  can  we  need,  that  these  deacons 
were  ministers  ?  Are  lajnoien  authorized  to  baptize  and  preach  ? 
If  so,  what  is  the  distinction  between  the  minister  and  the  lay- 
man?—  and  what  need  is  there  of  any  ordination?  Here, 
then,  we  have  two  orders  in  the  ministry;  and  this,  of  itself, 
destroys  the  claims  of  parity  ? " 

So  my  brother  leaps  to  his  conclusion.  Who  constitute  the 
two  orders  in  the  ministry,  which  he  has  now  so  fortunately  dis- 
covered? Why,  the  apostles  and  the  deacons.  But  has  he 
proved  yet  that  the  apostles,  as  such,  constituted  an  order  in  the 
permanent  ministry  of  the  christian  church  ?  Has  he  not  run 
a  long  way  before  his  story  ?  He  should  have  remembered, 
when  he  wrote  this  lecture,  that  he  was  not  Avriting  simply  for 
his  own  people,  who  would  be  likely  to  sympathize  in  his 
enthusiasm,  but  for  the  worid,  and  for  us  Presbyterians  particu- 
lariy,  who  deny  that ,  the  apostles,  as  such,  were,  in  any  sense, 
an  order  in  that  ministry  which  it  was  intended  the  church 
should  permanently  enjoy.  Whatever  he  may  have  proved, 
therefore,  for  himself,  and  for  Episcopahans,  he  must  see,  that 
in  a  controversy  with  us,  even  though  it  were  admitted  that  the 
deacons  were  true  ministers  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word, 
he  has  utteriy  lost  his  labor,  and  proved  nothing. 

But  has  he  proved  his  point  in  regard  to  the  deacons  ?  Has 
he  proved  that  they  were  ordained  to  the  christian  ministry  ? 
The  question  in  regard  to  the  apostles,  belongs  to  another  place. 


52  THE   CHURCH, 

and  will  be  treated  in  its  order.  The  question  now  relates  to 
tlie  deacons  solely. 

Mr.  Schuyler's  arguments,  for  the  ministerial  character  of  the 
deacons,  are  two. 

First.  The  quahfications  which  were  necessary  for  the  office : 
they  were  to  be  men  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom.  He 
puts  the  argument  in  this  way — "  Why  the  care  to  choose  men 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  to  act  in  the  capacity  of 
mere  table  stewards  ? "  It  is  necessary  here  to  notice  the  occa- 
sion on  which  the  office  of  deacon,  in  the  christian  church,  was 
instituted,  and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  designed.  The 
account  is  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  and  is 
as  follows :  "  In  those  days  when  the  number  of  the  disciples 
was  multiphed,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against 
the  Hebrews^  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministrations.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the 
disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should 
leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables,  wherefore,  brethren, 
look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this 
business.  But  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer  and 
to  the  ministry  of  the  word.  And  the  saying  pleased  the 
whole  multitude ;  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Phihp,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor, 
and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch." 

Now,  to  our  brother's  argument,  in  the  first  place,  we  reply, 
that  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  the  expression,  "  a  man  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  means  nothing  more,  or  less,  than  a  man 
eminent  for  piety ;  and  it  was  necessary  that  men  known  to  be 
of  eminent  piety  should  be  chosen  for  this  work  of  presiding 
over  and  distributing  the  charities  of  the  church,  in  order  that 
there  might  be  a  security  for  their  faithful  discharge  of  the 
duties  entrusted  to  them ;  and  that  the  people,  who  had  aheady 
grown  distrustful  of  the  impartiality  of  the  apostles  themselves, 
might  repose  confidence  in  them. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  53 

In  the  next  place,  it  was  necessary  that  they  shoiikl  be  men 
full  of  wisdom ;  because  the  duties  entrusted  to  them  were,  as 
every  one  sees,  extremely  delicate  in  their  nature,  and  difficult 
to  be  properly  performed.  A  murmuring  had  already  arisen ; 
difficulties  and  dissensions  were  already  springing  up  in  the 
infant  church,  in  consequence  of  a  supposed  unfairness  in  the 
distribution  of  the  alms.  Owing  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  time,  the  poor  were  very  numerous,  and  there  were  among 
them  all  classes  of  persons,  belonging  to  different  nations,  and 
remarkably  liable  on  that  account  to  be  jealous  of  each  other, 
and  particularly,  where  such  interests  were  concerned  as  those 
over  which  the  deacons  were  appointed  to  preside.  What  could 
be  more  important,  therefore,  than  that,  besides  being  eminent 
for  piety,  the  deacons  should  be  also  men  of  great  wisdom  ? 

Childish  as  this  argument  of  my  brother  is,  I  have  chosen  to 
treat  it  with  respect,  and  to  answer  it  fully.  It  is  evident  that 
the  qualifications  of  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom, 
were  essential  qualifications  for  the  secular  duties  of  the  deacon- 
ship.  Mr.  Schuyler  aims  at  nndervaluing  those  duties,  by 
contemptuously  italicising  the  phrase,  "  mere  table  stewards^ 
This  is  a  poor  trick,  and  I  do  not  fear  that  any  will  be  imposed 
upon  by  it.  The  business  of  the  deacons  is  briefly  called 
**  serving  tables,"  because  their  duties  mainly  consisted,  after 
determining  who  were  the  proper  persons  to  share  in  the  chari- 
ties of  the  church,  in  making  daily  distribution  of  food  for 
their  tables. 

The  second  argument  to  show  that  the  deacons,  as  such, 
were  invested  with  a  true  ministerial  character,  is  the  fact  that 
two  of  them,  in  the  course  of  the  gospel  history,  are  afterward 
found  performing  ministerial  duties.  Stephen  is  found  preach- 
ing, and  suffering  martyrdom  for  his  fidelity  as  a  preacher,  and 
Philip  is  found  preaching  and  baptizing. 

Now  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  mere  circumstance  of  a 
man's  preaching,  is  no  positive  evidence  that  he  had  been 
ordained  to    the   christian  ministry. —  See  Acts,  xi:   19-21, 


54  THE  CHURCH, 

"  Now  they  which  were  scattered  abroad  upon  the  persecution 
that  arose  about  Stephen,  traveled  as  far  as  Phenice,  and 
Cyprus,  and  Antioch,  preaching  the  word  to  none  but  unto 
Jews  only.  And  some  of  them  were  men  of  Cyprus  and 
Cyrene,  which  when  they  were  come  to  Antioch,  spake  unto 
the  Grecians,  preaching  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  with  them,  and  a  great  number  believed  and  turned 
unto  the  Lord."  Were  all  these,  and  those  men  of  Cyprus 
and  Cyrene,  ordained  christian  ministers  ?  The  same  thing  is 
mentioned  also  in  Acts  viii :  4,  5  — "  Therefore  they  that  were 
scattered  abroad,  went  everywhere  preaching  the  w^ord.  And 
Philip  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  preached  Christ 
unto  them ! "  Were  all  these  that  were  scattered  abroad, 
ordained  ministers  ? — I  ask  again.  They  all  preached,  they  all 
proclaimed,  wherever  they  went,  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
and  called  upon  their  fellow  sinners  to  repent  and  believe  in 
Christ;  but  that  they  were  all  yninisters,  in  our  sense  of  that 
word,  no  reasonable  man  will  suppose  for  a  moment,  much  less 
venture  to  affirm. 

The  argument,  then,  from  the  case  of  Stephen  is  disposed  of. 
Now  for  that  from  the  case  of  Philip,  who  not  only  preached, 
but  baptized^ —  which,  we  are  \\illing  to  admit,  was  an  act  that 
could  not  properly  be  performed  by  a  layman.  The  question 
which  w^e  raise  here  is  this :  May  not  Philip,  subsequently  to 
his  receiving  the  deaconship,  and  before  the  events  recorded 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts  incident  upon  his  journey  to 
Samaria,  have  been  specially  ordained  to  the  ministerial  office  ? 
May  he  not  have  laid  aside  his  diaconate  for  higher  and  holier 
duties?  That  Phihp  had  ceased  to  be  a  deacon,  and  had 
assumed  another  office  at  a  later  period,  is  actually  upon  record ; 
for  in  Acts  xxi :  8,  he  is  distinctly  mentioned  as  an  evangelist. 
Now,  who  will  affirm  that  this  change  in  his  condition  had  not 
taken  place  previously  to  his  baptism  of  the  eunuch  ?  Will  it 
be  said,  that  if  this  had  happened,  there  would  have  been  some 
notice  of  it  ?     I  reply,  the  fact  is  undeniable,  that  he  was  at 


ITS  MmiSTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  55 

some  time  ordained  to  a  higlier  office  than  the  deaconship ;  but 
where  is  any  notice  to  be  found  of  that  event  ?  It  had  occurre  .1 
at  some  point  of  time  during  the  course  of  twenty-six  years,  and 
who  can  say  that  it  was  not  during  tht  first  two  of  those  years  ? 

Now  I  take  the  ground  absohitely,  that  Phihp  had  been 
ordained  to  the  office  of  the  gospel  ministry  priorly  to  his  visit 
to  Samaria.  If  he  had  not  been,  then  we  have  a  clear  instance, 
not  only  of  lay-preaching,  but  of  lay-baptism  also;  for  it  is 
demonstrable,  that  his  ordination  to  the  deaconship  left  him 
nothing  hut  a  layman. 

First.  It  can  not  be  shown  that  there  is  any  thing  absurd  or 
improbable  in  the  supposition  which  I  make.  It  is  clear  that 
at  this  early  period  Philip  possessed  the  proper  qualifications  for 
the  ministerial  office ;  and,  at  a  time  when  suitable  persons  to 
become  ministers  were  undoubtedly  few,  it  is  only  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  such  a  man  as  he  would  early  attract  the  attentic-n 
of  the  apostles,  and  be  chosen  by  them  to  a  more  dignified  and 
important  office  than  that  of  serving  tables. 

Second.  I  ask  attention  to  the  simple  facts  in  the  case. 
Let  the  reader  recur  again  to  the  narrative  of  the  ordination  of 
Philip  and  others  to  the  deaconship,  which  has  been  quoted 
already,  from  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  and 
see  for  himself,  what  the  tnie  nature  and  purpose  of  that  ordi- 
nation were.  The  facts  are  there  all  put  before  him,  and  they 
are  as  plain  and  intelligible  as  any  facts  could  be.  The  apostles 
were  pressed  with  the  vast  multitude  of  duties  and  avocations 
which  devolved  upon  them,  and  wdien  "  there  arose  a  murmur- 
ing of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widov.s 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministrations,"  they  called  the 
multitude  of  the  disciples  together,  and  said,  "  It  is  not  reas>  'U 
that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God.,  to  serve  tables,  wherefore, 
brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  rej^rt, 
full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appd^it 
over  this  business P  The  seven  men  were  found,  and  when 
they  were  "set  before  the   apostles,"  they,  i.  e.,  the  apostles, 


5€  THE  CHURCH, 

"prayed,"  and  "laid  liands  on  them."  So  they  were  ordained 
to  the  deaconship;  or  in  other  words,  they  were  "appointed 
over  this  business "  of  serving-  tables,  or  of  attending  to  the 
wants  and  intei'ests  of  the-  poor.  Be-  it  observed,  there  is  not 
the  most  distant  allusion  to  their  being  ordained  to  assist  the 
apostles  in  preaching,  or  in  performing  any  whatever  of  the 
functions  of  the  ministerial  office;  but  simply  to  their  being  set 
over  this  business  of  sei'\dng'  tables,  that  the  apostles  might  not 
be  compelled  to  "leave  the  word  of  God,"  and  that  they 
might  give  themselves  "  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry 
of  the  word." 

Now  onr  E])iscopal  brethren  say,  that  this  was  an  ordination 
to  the  christian  ministry !  I  feel  nothing  more  strongly  than 
amazement,  at  such  an  unfounded  and  unpalliated  pretension. 
The  duties  of  the  deaconship  were  secular,  and  nothing  but 
secular,  and  the  deacons,  as  such,  were  no  more  ministers,  in  the 
sense  of  our  present  discussion,  than  the  trustees  of  modern 
congregations,  to  Avhom  is  intrusted  the  care  of  ordinary  tempo- 
ralities, are  ministers.  They  were  office-bearers  in  the  church, 
but  not  ministers  of  the  gospel. 

If  it  is  asked,  why  then  were  the  deacons  ordained  with  so 
much  solemn  formality  ?  I  reply, —  that  the  apostles  saw  fit  to  do 
so,  probably,  to  inspire  them  with  a  higher  sense  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  their  office,  and  to  inspire  the  people  with  higher 
respect  for  them  as  office-bearers.  After  their  example,  it  is  the 
practice  in  Presbyterian  churches,  to  ordain  deacons  in  the  same 
manner,  to  an  office  precisely  similar. 

Now  then,  if  Philip's  ordination  to  the  deaconship  was  not 
an  ordination  to  the  ministry, —  and  every  one  must  own  that 
it  was  not, —  and  afterward  we  find  him  exercising  the  functions 
of  the  ministry,  we  are  bound  to  conclude  tliat  he  ha<l  received 
in  the  mean  time,  another  and  a  higher  ordination,  though  no 
account  be  given  us  of  it.  There  is  no  other  conclusion  pos- 
sible, unless  it  be  that  in  some  cases  both  lay-preaching  jmd 
lay-baptism  were  practised  in  the  early  church. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP,  57 

Mr.  Schuyler's  third  sci'iptural  argument  for  Ej^iscopacy  tii«ii, 
is  set  aside.  I  trust  my  readers  are  capable  of  seeing  that  it 
has  been  set  aside  fairly  and  fully :  first,  by  showing  that  so  far 
as  the  apostks  are  concerned,  it  proceeds  upon  a  mere  assump- 
tion that  they,  as  apostles,  constituted  an  order  in  the  permanent 
christian  ministry  —  a  proposition  which  our  author  should  have 
known  is  utterly  denied  by  us;  and  secondly,  by  showing  that 
the  deaconship  was  not  a  ministerial,  but  purely  a  lay  office. 

On  this  subject  of  the  deaconship  it  will  he  convenient  to  say 
something  under  the  next  head. 


THE  FOURTH  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT  FOR 
EPISCOPACY. 

THE  THREE-FOLD    MINISTRY    COMPLETED,  BY    THE    DISCOVERY  OF 
ANOTHER    ORDER,  CALLED    PRESBYTERS. 

No  one  can  give  Mr.  Schuyler's  arguments  like  himself;  it  is 
due  to  him,  therefore,  that  he  should  have  the  advantag-e  of  his 
own  statement.     He  says  as  follows,  page  fifty-two : 

"  The  first  mention  we  find  of  the  order  of  elders  or  presby- 
ters (as  they  mean  the  same  thing,  being  derived  from  the  same 
Greek  word,)  is  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Acts,  where  the 
brethren  at  Antioch,  in  sending  relief  to  the  people  of  Judea, 
are  spoken  of  as  sending  it  by  the  hands  of  Barnabas  and  Said 
to  the  elders.  And  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  it  is  mentioned 
that  St.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  revisiting  the  churches  which  they 
had  founded,  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church.  Noav, 
clearly,  these  elders  were  neither  apostles  nor  deacons;  but,  thjit 
these  elders  were  ministers,  is  plainly  shown  in  the  charge  of 
St.  Paul,  at  Miletus,  to  those  whom  he  had  called  from  Ephesus : 
'  Take  heed  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the 
church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.' 
These,  it  is  contended  by  the  advocates  of  paiitv,  or  of  but  one 
4* 


58  THE  CHURCH, 

order  in  the  ministry,  are  the  only  bishops  which  the  scriptures 
recognize ;  and  that  no  higher  authority  was  committed  to  any 
other  ofRce  in  the  ministry  than  to  them  ?  But  this  is  a 
strangely  inconsistent  assei-tion  when  we  have  one  minister,  St. 
Paul,  the  apostle,  calling  them  all  together  and  instructing  them, 
and,  as  we  shall  shortly  see,  placing  another  over  them  — 
Timothy  —  with  a  charge  which  clearly  implies  higher  authority 
in  him,  than  any  which  he  now  recognizes  in  them.  Here, 
then,  as  we  have  shown,  w^e  have  the  three  orders  after  Christ's 
ascension,  viz.,  apostles,  presbyters^  and  deaconsP 

I  confess  that  I  find  a  difficulty  in  maintaining  that  degree 
of  gravity  which  should  characterize  so  grave  a  discussion  as  the 
present,  when  I  am  compelled  to  reply  to  such  reasoning — if  I 
may  call  it  reasoning  —  as  the  above ;  but  since  I  am  committed 
to  it,  I  will  even  go  through,  and  say  what  I  have  to  say  with 
the  seriousness  to  which  my  subject  is  entitled.  I  remember 
tliat  Mr.  Schuyler's  brethren  in  this  city,  whom  I  respect,  as 
I  do  indeed  himself  also,  in  any  other  position  than  the  one 
lie  has  been  permitted  to  take  in  this  discussion,  have  said 
in  their  commendatory  letter  which  accompanies  his  book, 
that  his  "/rw^As,"  (I  applaud  their  forbearance  on  other  points,) 
are  "  unansiverahleP  I  shall  try,  then,  to  get  at  Mr.  Schuyler's 
truths. 

The  truths  contained  in  the  above  extract,  which  we  acknow- 
ledge, and  do  not  wish  to  answer,  are  the  following : 

First.  That  we  find  no  mention  of  elders  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, earlier  than  that  made  in  Acts  xi :  30,  where  it  is  said, 
that  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  commissioned  by  the  christians  in 
Antioch,  to  convey  their  charities  for  the  poor  brethren  in  Judea, 
to  the  hands  of  the  elders  there. 

Second.  That  these  elders  were  neither  apostles  nor  deacons. 

Third.  That  these  elders  were  ministers. 

These  truths  are  of  importance.  This  mission  of  Barnabas 
and  Saul  to  Judea,  was  not  far  from  a  year  after  the  dispersion 
that  took  place  on  account  of  the  persecution  that  arose  about 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  59 

Stephen,  at  which  time  PhiHp  went  down  to  Samaria.  These 
elders,  Mr.  Schuyler  owns,  were  ministers,  and  he  owns  too,  that 
we  have  no  previous  account  of  them.  There  had  then,  as  a 
clear  matter  of  fact,  at  this  early  day,  been  ordinations  to  the 
ministry,  and  very  numerous  ordinations,  of  which  no  mention 
is  made  in  the  history.  I  bring  out  this  fact  for  the  obvious 
pui-pose  of  showing  more  fully,  that  there  is  nothing  unreason- 
able in  my  supposition,  that  Philip  had  been  ordained  an  elder. 
There  is,  in  truth,  no  avoiding  the  conclusion  that  he  had  been. 
Put  together  the  fact,  that  his  deaconship,  which  is  to  be 
judged  of  solely  by  the  account  given  of  it  at  the  time  that 
office  was  instituted,  was  a  purely  secular  office,  not  embracing 
a  solitary  function  of  the  ministry;  that,  at  a  subsequent  time 
he  is  found  exercising  another  office,  that  of  the  ministry  itself; 
and  that  numerous  ordinations  to  the  ministry  were  constantly 
taking  place,  of  which  no  account  whatever  is  furnished  in  the 
sacred  narrative,  and  you  have  proof,  which  any  reasonable 
mind  must  regard  as  amounting  to  demonstration,  that  Philip 
was  one  of  those,  who,  without  record  of  the  fact,  had  received 
ministerial  ordination.  And  here,  though  this  point  has  been 
sufficiently  argued  before,  let  me  distinctly  notify  the  reader, 
that  the  entire  whole  of  the  Episcopal  argument  from  scripture, 
for  the  ministerial  character  of  the  deacons,  rests  on  the  facts 
that,  after  their  ordination  to  this  office  Stephen  preached,  and 
Philip  preached  and  baptized.  If,  in  the  unbiassed  and  sober 
judgment  of  any  man,  their  argument  is  not  absolutely  worthless, 
I  know  not  what  an  argument  needs  to  be  void  of,  to  make  it 
worthless.  If  they  say  that  additional  argument  is  found  in  the 
directions  concerning  deacons,  that  they  should  "  be  grave,  not 
double-tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy 
lucre,  holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  conscience ; " 
that  they  should  be  proved  and  found  blameless  before  they  are 
put  into  office,  and  that  they  must  "  be  the  husbands  of  one 
wife" —  i.  e.  of  but  one  —  and  rule  "  their  children  and  their 
own  houses  well " — if,  I  say,  they  claim  that  there  is  additional 


60  THE  CHUliCH, 

argument  in  all  this,  then  I  affirm  that  they  alone  have  eyes  to 
discover  it.  These  are  all  proper  qualifications  doubtless  for  the 
ministry,  but  they  are  proper  and  important  qualifications  also 
for  the  office  of  the  deaconship,  according  to  the  view  of  that 
office  which  is  held  by  us.  It  is  absurd  to  say,  that  from  such 
directions  concerning  deacons,  their  ministerial  character  may  be 
inferred.  These  very  directions  we  Presbyterians  have  always 
aimed  to  follow  in  our  selection  of  men  to  fill  the  deacon's  office 
in  our  churches. 

We  see,  then,  the  kind  of  evidence  from  the  scriptures,  on 
which  rests  one  entire  order  of  the  ministry  in  the  Episcopal 
system.  To  say  that  it  is  insufficient,  that  it  is  no  evidence  at 
all,  is  a  work  of  simple  supererogation. 

But  now  for  the  episcopal  truth  in  this  last  passage  from 
Mr.  Schuyler,  which,  it  is  said,  is  unanswerable.  It  is  found  in 
the  closing  sentence,  based  upon  a  discovery  that  there  was,  at 
the  time  to  which  our  discussion  now  relates,  a  class  of  ministers 
in  the  church  comprehended  under  the  general  designation  of 
elders. —  Says  our  author,  "  Here  then,  as  we  have  shown,  we 
have  the  three  orders  after  Christ's  ascension,  viz.,  apostles, 
presbyters^  and  deacons." 

"  As  we  have  shown." — Where,  my  dear  brother  ?  We  have 
been  looking  with  all  the  intentness  of  which  we  are  capable,  to 
see,  if  we  could,  something  that  you  had  made  out,  something 
that  you  had  established,  and  we  have  looked  in  vain.  We 
have  had  "  abundance  of  bold  assertion  advanced  with  all  the 
confidence  of  argument,"  but  as  for  proof,  of  any  thing,  we 
have  not  yet  been  fortunate  enough  to  find  it.  "  As  we  have 
shown! "  What!  do  you  pretend  to  say  that  you  have  shown 
that  there  were  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking,  three 
orders  in  the  permanent  ministry  of  the  christian  church  ? —  and 
that  these  three  orders  were  apostles,  presbyters,  and  deacons  ? 
Why,  sir,  you  have  not  yet  touched  the  question  respecting  the 
apostles;  you  have  not  glanced  at  it.  In  regard  to  deacons,  if 
you  have  shown  any  thing,  I  do  not  know  it.     As  to  elders, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  61 

you  have  shown  by  the  quotation  of  a  text  of  scripture  that 
such  a  class  of  ministers  existed,  and  that  is  all  that  you  have 
shown;  and  yet,  at  this  point  you  rest  from  your  herculean 
labor,  and  cry,  Victory !  You  have  made  out  your  case  1  you 
have  proved  that  Episcopacy  is  the  doctrine  of  the  bible ;  having 
found  in  actual  existence  after  Christ's  ascension,  three  dis- 
tinct and  separate  orders  in  the  ministry  of  the  church — viz., 
apostles,  presbyters,  and  deacons ! 

You  said  a  little  while  ago,  "  Let  us  bring  the  question  of 
parity  or  imparity,  equality  or  inequality,  in  the  orders  of  the 
ministry,  to  the  test  of  scripture."  "You  had  said  before,  "  The 
question  now  comes  up.  Who  are  successors  of  the  apostles,  and 
who,  therefore,  are  duly  empowered  to  confer  the  ministerial 
commission  ?  The  determination  of  this  question  rests  upon  the 
decision  of  the  issue  between  two  systems,  episcopacy  and  parity." 
You  have  now  brought  the  question  of  parity  or  imparity,  to 
the  test  of  scripture,  you  have  tried  this  issue,  and  settled  it. 
That  is,  you  claim  now  to  have  proved  that  the  bible  teaches 
episcopacy!  Well,  I  have  nothing  to  say;  our  readers  must 
decide  between  us.  You  are  prepared  now  for  the  main  ques- 
tion, and  to  this  you  proceed  —  Who  are  the  successors  of  the 
apostles,  and  who  therefore  have  the  power  to  confer  the 
ministerial  commission?  You  have  concluded  your  argument 
for  imparity  in  the  ministerial  office,  for  three  orders,  and  now 
you  say  the  question  returns,  "  To  which  of  these  three  orders 
was  the  ordaining  power  committed  ? "  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say,  that  if  the  question  which  you  are  now  about  to  answer, 
does  depend  on  a  previous  decision  of  the  issue  betv.een  the 
two  systems  of  parity  and  imparity^  you  are  in  a  ^  cry  sad 
predicament. 

I  am  not  yet  quite  prepared  to  follow  our  author  in  his  next 
advance,  having  something  more  to  say  on  the  subject  of  elders. 

"  These,"  that  is,  elders,  says  Mr.  S.,  page  fifty-three,  "  it  is 
contended  by  the  advocates  for  parity,  or  of  but  one  order  in 
the  ministry,  are  the  only  bishops  the  scriptures  recognize,  and 


62  THE    CHURCH, 

that  no  higher  authority  was  committed  to  any  other  officer  in 
the  ministry  than  to  them.  But  this  is  a  strangely  inconsistent 
assertion,  when  we  have  one  minister^  St.  Paul,  the  apostle, 
calling  them  altogether,  and  instructing  them." 

See,  here,  my  brother's  inveterate  habit  of  anticipating  his 
OAvn  argument,  and  of  taking  for  granted  what  he  has  not  yet 
proved.  Does  he  not  know  that  we  Presbyterians  utterly  deny 
that  "  St.  Paul,  the  apostle,"  was  a  minister  in  the  church,  i.  e., 
using  the  word  minister  in  the  sense  of  the  present  discussion, 
as  the  title  of  one  holding  an  office  that  was  designed  to  be 
permanent?  Paul,  the  elder,  was  such  a  minister  in  the 
church,  —  but  not  Paul,  the  apostle.  After  he  shall  have 
proved  that  the  apostleship  was  intended  to  be  a  successive 
and  an  abiding  office,  it  will  then  amount  to  something  to  tell 
us  of  the  authority  which  apostles  exercised  over  other  minis- 
ters. Until  then,  it  is  not  only  a  waste  of  words,  but  it  is  mere 
trifling  and  impertinence. 

"  It  is  contended  by  the  advocates  for  parity,  or  of  but  one 
order  in  the  ministry,  that  the  elders  are  the  only  bishops  which 
the  scriptures  recognize,  and  that  no  higher  authority  was  com- 
mitted to  any  otlier  officer  in  the  ministry  than  to  them."  As 
to  the  latter  part  of  this  sentence,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  it 
expresses  the  truth,  if  our  author  refers  to  the  permanent  officers 
in  the  ministry;  otherwise,  not  a  truth;  for  we  admit,  that 
while  the  apostolic  office  continued  in  the  churcli,  the  apostles 
were  superior  to  the  elders.  For  the  rest,  do  not  Episcopalians 
themselves  admit  that  elders  are  the  only  bishops  which  the 
scriptures  recognize?  What  says  our  author  himself  on  the 
very  next  page,  fifty-four  —  "  We  readily  admit  that  the  name 
of  '  bishop,'  which  we  now  appropriate  to  the  highest  grade,  is 
used  in  the  bible  as  importing  the  same  office  with  '  elder '  or 
'  presb}i:er.'  "  He  has  his  own  explanation  to  give  for  this. 
But  here  is  the  fact.  In  the  New  Testament  the  terms  elder  or 
presb}i,er,  and  bishop,  are  used  interchangeably  to  indicate  one 
and  only  one  office;  —  see  my  sermon  upon  this  point,  —  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  63 

it  may  be  added  that  to  no  other  officers  in  the  church  what- 
ever, not  even  to  apostles,  is  the  name  "  bishop "  in  a  single 
instance  applied.  We  do  indeed  claim  therefore,  that  the 
scriptures  recognize  no  bishops  except  presbyters;  we  claim  it 
without  contradiction.  If  other  bishops  were  recognized  in  the 
church,  in  subsequent  times,  we  say  simply,  it  was  an  unauthor- 
ized departure  from  scriptural  usage  and  established  scriptural 
precedent. 

The  elders  alone,  according  to  the  New  Testament  history, 
had  the  immediate  oversight  and  spiritual  care  of  the  churches. 
Thus,  in  Paul's  address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  at  Miletus,  he 
said,  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock 
over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  {episco- 
pons,  bishops,)  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Where  is  there  the  record  of 
such  language  used  either  to,  or  concerning  any  other  order  of 
oflicers  in  the  church  ?  Where  is  the  place  in  which  deacons 
are  so  addressed,  or  even  in  connection  with  such  duties,  spoken 
of?  These  are  the  men,  the  presbyters,  to  oversee,  to  look  after, 
to  govern  the  flock,  and  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  and  these 
only.  These  are  the  bishops  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made, 
the  true  bishops,  the  only  bishops,  in  spite  of  all  human  inven- 
tions, and  devices  and  makings  of  men. 

The  dignity  of  the  presbyterate,  or  the  elder's  office,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact,  that  the  apostles  themselves  delighted  to 
assert  their  own  right  to  it,  and  to  be  called  by  its  name.  If  I 
may  for  once  assume  a  thing  that  I  have  not  proved,  I  will 
assume  here  that  the  apostleship  was  temporary,  and  not  a  per- 
manent office  in  the  christian  ministry,  and  I  will  give  this  as  a 
reason  why  the  apostles  gloried  in  the  name  of  elder;  for  in 
respect  of  the  permanent  nature  of  the  eldership  and  the  tempo- 
rary nature  of  the  apostleship,  the  eldership  was  the  nobler  and 
better  office  of  the  two.  While  the  apostleship  should  forever 
cease  Avith  the  lives  of  the  men  who  first  held  it,  the  eldership 
was  to  be  an  office  in  the  church  till  time  should  be  no  more, 


64  THE  CHURCH, 

under  which  the  church  should  pass  through  all  her  vicissitudes, 
and  end  at  once  her  triumphs  and  her  toils.  Hence  the 
apostles  may  well  have  felt  that  it  was  an  honor  to  be  called 
elders;  and  we  need  not  wonder  that  Peter  should  say, — 
1  Peter,  v :  1,  —  "  The  elders  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder; " 
and  that  John,  in  the  salutation  of  two  of  his  epistles,  should 
style  himself  "  the  elder." 

Whoever  reads  attentively  the  scripture  history,  and  particu- 
lai'ly  notices  the  manner  in  which  elders  are  spoken  of,  will  not 
fail  to  notice,  that  of  elders  there  are  two  classes, — ^  those  who 
rule^  and  those  who,  in  addition  to  the  exercise  of  authority, 
labor  also  in  word  and  doctrine,  familiarly  cahed,  in  the  Presby- 
terian church,  "ruling  elders"  and  "teaching  elders;"  the 
former  of  whom  are  not  ministers  in  the  proper  sense  of  that 
word,  but  assistants  of  the  ministers  in  the  spiritual  oversight  of 
the  churches,  —  as  deacons  are  assistants  of  the  ministers  in 
looking  after  the  poor,  and  dispensing  the  public  charities  for 
their  relief. 

A  passage  clearly  bearing  on  this  point,  may  be  found  in 
1  Tim.  v:  17,  —  "Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted 
worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and 
doctrine."  Here,  beyond  all  reasonable  question,  are  pointed 
out  two  classes  of  office-bearers,  exercising  separate  and  distinct 
functions.      '^ 

It  is  intimated  in  the  clearest  manner  that  there  are  elders 
who  rule,  and  who  rule  only ;  i.  e.,  who  administer  the  laws  and 
discipline  of  Christ's  house,  for  the  maintenance  of  good  order 
and  purity;  and  that  there  is  another  class  of  elders  joined 
with  the  fomier  in  the  exercise  of  government,  who,  in  addition 
to  this,  preach  the  gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments.  Vari- 
ous methods  have  been  attempted  for  evading  the  force  of  this 
text ;  but  no  one,  rejecting  our  view  of  it,  has  ever  been  able 
to  afford  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  question,  Who  are  intended 
by  the  eldei-s  that  rule  well,  as  distinguished  from  those  that 
labor  in  word  and  doctrine  ?     They  can  not  be  ministers  who 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  65 

have  ceased  to  exercise  the  functions  of  the  ministry,  for  such 
do  not  rule  at  all.  They  can  not  be  diocesan  bishops,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  preaching  presbyters, — for,  besides  that  there 
were  no  such  bishops  in  the  apostolic  church,  this  would  be  to 
assign  higher  honor  to  the  presbyters  than  to  the  bishops. 
They  can  not  be  ordinary  bishops  or  presb}i;ers,  in  distinction 
from  evangelists,  —  for  no  such  diversity  as  that  which  the  text 
indicates  existed,  in  the  primitive  church,  between  these  tv/o 
classes  of  ministers.  They  can  not  be  the  deacons,  —  for  no  rule 
whatever  in  the  church  was  assigned  to  these  officers.  If  our 
exposition  of  the  text  be  not  the  true  one,  let  another  be  sug- 
gested, if  another  can  be,  which  will  bear  the  test  of  criticism. 

With  the  text  that  has  been  cited^  compare  1  Cor.  xii:  28 
"  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first,  apostles ;  secondarily 
prophets;  thirdly,  teachers;  after  that,  miracles;  then  gifts  of 
healing,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tong-ues."  Although 
in  this  passage  there  is  an  enumeration  of  miraculous  and  extra- 
ordinary ministrations  in  the  early  church,  yet  evidently,  it  must 
also  be  considered  as  specifying,  in  part,  ordinary  and  penna- 
nent  office-bearers.  Dr.  John  Dick  says,  "  There  are  no  persons 
who  may  be  so  reasonably  supposed  to  be  meant  by  '  helps '  as 
deacons ;  and  thus  the  word  has  often  been  explained.  They 
were  instituted  for  the  express  purpose  of  helping  the  apostles, 
for  the  purpose  of  relie\dng  them  from  the .  care  of  the  poor, 
that  they  might  devote  themselves  exclusively  to  the  ministry 
of  the  word.  If  helps  signify  helpers,  governments  must 
signify  governors,  the  abstract  being  put  in  both  cases  for  the 
concrete.  The  question  then  is,  Who  were  the  governors  to 
whom  the  apostles  referred  ?  They  were  not  the  apostles,  nor 
the  proj^hets,  nor  the  teachers,  because  these  are  mentioned  as 
distinct  classes.  They  were  not  helpers,  because  these  are  men- 
tioned as  a  distinct  class  also;  and  besides,  if  deacons  were 
intended,  they  could  with  no  propriety  be  called  governors,  for 
deacons  have  no  rule  in  the  church.  There  is  no  other  class  of 
persons  to  whom  this  title,  used  as  it  is  in  contradistinction  to 


66  THE  CHURCH, 

other  office-bearers,  will  apply,  but  the  ruling  elders  of  Presby- 
terians ;  and  it  is  with  obvious  propriety  that  they  are  designated 
as  governors,  since  the  sole  business  of  their  office  is  to  govern 
the  congregation  over  which  they  are  appointed.  God  has  set 
some  governors  in  the  church.  He  has  not  lodged  the  power  in 
the  people  at  large,  but  has  ordained  that  a  few,  appointed  by 
the  whole,  should  be  invested  with  authority  to  take  order  that 
the  members  should  walk  in  the  ordinances  and  commandments 
of  God." 

Compare,  also,  Rom.  xii :  6-8,  "  Having  then  gifts  differing 
according  to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us  ;  Avhether  of  prophecy, 
let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith ;  or  ministry, 
let  us  wait  on  our  ministering ;  or  he  that  teacheth,  on  teach- 
ing ;  or  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation ;  he  that  giveth,  let 
him  do  it  with  simplicity;  he  that  ruleth,  with  diligence;  he 
that  showeth  mercy,  w4th  cheerfulness." 

I  quote  again  from  Dr.  Dick. 

"  It  is  the  opinion  of  many  commentators,  that  prophesying, 
which  sometimes  signifies  public  teaching  by  the  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  ministry,  are  general  divisions  under  which 
the  different  offices  of  the  church  ai-e  arranged ;  that  prophesy- 
ing comprehends  teaching  and  exhorting ;  and  ministry,  giving, 
ruling,  and  showing  mercy.  At  any  rate,  it  is  plain  that  ruling 
is  distinguished  from  teaching,  exhorting,  and  giving,  or  from 
the  peculiar  work  of  the  pastor,  the  doctor,  and  the  deacon. 
The  original  term,  2^'^oistamenos,  is  properly  translated,  he  that 
ruleth,  because  it  evidently  denotes  one  who  presides  over  othere 
with  authority.  This  presidency  is  attributed  to  one  as  his 
proper  business.  It  is  his  duty  to  preside,  or  to  rule,  as  it  is 
of  another  to  teach,  or  to  give.  The  apostle  is  not  enumerating 
the  various  duties  of  one  individual,  but  the  different  duties  of 
different  individuals.  Who,  then,  is  he  that  ruleth  ?  He  is  not 
the  deacon,  for  the  deacon  does  not  mle,  but  gives  to  the  poor ; 
he  is  not  the  pastor,  for,  although  the  pastor  rules,  he  is  here 
characterized  by  teaching,  or  exhorting,  which  is  peculiar  to  him. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  67 

He  that  rules  must,  tlierefore,  be  a  person  whose  whole  duty- 
consists  in  ruling ;  or,  in  other  words,  an  elder,  according  to  the 
views  of  Presbyterians.  Some  tell  us,  that  his  rule  is  over  his 
family;  but  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  and  is  a  shift  to 
get  rid  of  a  difficulty,  because  the  apostle  is  obviously  speaking 
of  the  church.  Others  say,  that  he  rules  over  the  church  stock ; 
but  they  confound  him  with  the  deacon,  who  gives ;  and  besides, 
in  this  sense,  the  expression  would  be  indefinite  and  improper ; 
there  being  nothing  to  determine  the  kind  of  rule  to  which  the 
apostle  refers ;  and  surely,  it  will  not  be  supposed  that  a  deacon 
was  held  in  such  estimation  in  primitive  times  as  to  be  called 
proistamenos  —  he  that  rules  —  by  way  of  eminence.  There  is 
another  mode  of  evading  the  argument,  by  saying  that  the 
apostle  is  not  speaking  of  offices  and  office-bearers,  but  of  gifts. 
Some  pains  have  been  taken  to  obviate  this  objection,  but  with- 
out necessity,  because  it  is  manifestly  unfounded ;  and,  at  any 
rate,  it  does  not  answer  the  design  of  those  who  have  adopted 
it.  Paul  does  indeed  make  mention  of  gifts;  but  he  imme- 
diately proceeds  to  consider  them  as  bestowed  upon  particular 
persons,  and  speaks  of  those  persons  as  plainly  as  one  man  can 
speak  of  another.  Besides,  although  he  were  speaking  of  gifts, 
the  argument  is  of  the  same  force  as  if  he  were  speaking  of 
persons ;  for  gifts  are  bestowed  upon  persons  for  particular  pur- 
poses. And  if  there  are  gifts  which  qualify  for  ruling,  as  there 
are  gifts  which  qualify  for  teaching,  it  follows,  that  to  rule  or 
govern  is  the  exclusive  duty  of  those  upon  whom  the  former 
are  conferred.  Every  unprejudiced  man  must  perceive  the 
truth  of  this  reasoning,  and  consequently  must  think  that  the 
evasion  mentioned  above  is  not  worthy  of  notice." 

Coincident  with  all  this,  and  confirmatory  of  it,  is  the  fact 
every^vhere  apparent,  that  in  all  the  churches  of  the  apostolic 
time  there  was  a  plurality  of  elders.  Every  church  had  its 
bench,  or  college  of  officers,  bearing  this  general  appellation ; 
for  examples,  see  Acts  xiv :  23  —  "  And  when  they  had  ordained 
them  elders  in  every  church  "  —  not  an  elder  in  every  church, 


68  THE  CHURCH, 

but  in  every  cliurcli  elders.  Also,  James  v:  14  —  "Is  any 
sick  among  you  ?  let  liira  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church,"  &c. 
There  were,  then,  in  the  apostolic  church  two  classes  of  elders,  — 
not  two  orders  of  ministers,  but  two  classes  of  persons  under 
the  general  designation  of  elders  —  one  class  consisting  of 
persons  who  were  fully  endowed  with  all  the  ministerial  func- 
tions, to  preach  the  word  and  administer  the  sacraments,  and 
to  exercise  authority  in  the  church  as  spiritual  rulers ;  —  the 
other,  of  persons  not  invested  with  ministerial  powers,  but 
appointed;  in  conjunction  with  the  ministers,  simply  to  rule. 

Now,  barely  reminding  the  reader,  that  the  apostles,  besides 
being  apostles,  were  also  elders^  (the  proof  has  been  pre\aously 
quoted,)  and  that  the  question  in  regard  to  the  permanency  or 
otherwise,  of  the  apostleship,  as  a  ministerial  office  in  the  church, 
has  not  yet  been  settled,  we  call  him  to  notice  that  we  have 
found  thus  far  but  one  order  of  permanent  christian  ministers. 
We  have  found,  however,  in  addition  to  this  one  order  of  min- 
isters, two  other  permanent  offices:  those  of  the  deaconship 
and  the  niling  eldership,  as  they  exist  in  the  Presbyterian 
church. 

The  question  in  regard  to  the  permanency  of  the  deacon's 
office,  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  That  in  regard  to  the  perma- 
nency of  the  office  of  mling  elder,  is  settled,  by  a  consideration 
of  the  permanence  of  the  same  necessity  which  first  gave 
occasion  for  its  being  .constituted. 

If  our  \dews  in  regard  to  ruling  elders  shall  be  controverted, 
we  have  only  to  admonish  those  concerned,  that  their  office  is 
not  an  essential  feature  of  Presbyterianism,  or  of  that  ecclesias- 
tical system  described  by  the  term  parity. 

Our  author  now,  page  fifty-four,  returns  to  the  question. 
Who  are  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  who,  therefore,  are 
empowered  to  confer  the  ministerial  commission  ?  He  says, — 
assuming  that  he  has  established  the/ac^  of  three  orders  in  the 
christian  ministry  — "  To  which  of  these  three  ordei-s  was  the 
ordaining  power  committed  ? "     This  is  literally  a  flight,  or  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  69 

fall,  for  certainly  there  is  nothing  but  thin  air  under  him.  "  To 
which  of  these  three  orders  ! "  What  three  orders,  my  dear 
brother  ?  Surely  something  is  wrong  with  your  eyes,  for  you 
see  treble.  Do  you  not  know  that  you  have  shown,  as  yet,  but 
one  order  in  the  permanent  chiistian  ministry  ?  Why,  then,  do 
you  speak  of  three  ? 

As  you  seem  resolved  never  to  take  up  the  case  of  the 
apostles,  and  determine  whether,  as  such,  they  were  the  holders 
of  a  permanent  christian  ministry ;  and  as,  in  fact,  you  never 
do  take  it  up,  but  go  through  your  entire  book,  assuming  your 
theory  of  their  oflBce,  and  making  it  the  very  foundation  of 
your  whole  Episcopal  system,  I  must  here  leave  you  for  a  while, 
and  attend  to  that  question ;  I  can  not  get  on  farther,  without 
having  it  disposed  of. 


WAS    THE    APOSTLESHIP    INTENDED    TO    BE    A 
SUCCESSIVE  AND  PERMANENT  OFFICE? 

We  say  it  was  not.  In  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  in  the 
intention  of  Christ,  it  was  transient,  and  ceased  forever  with 
the  lives  of  those  on  whom  it  was  first  bestowed.  Let  me 
be  distinctly  understood.  I  speak  of  the  apostleship.  That 
the  apostles  were  to  have  successors  we  do  not  deny,  but  on 
the  contrajy,  affirm, —  yet,  not  in  the  apostleship.  They  were 
presbyters  as  well  as  apostles,  and  it  was  in  the  presbyterate 
that  they  were  to  be  succeeded  by  others,  and  in  this  only. 

What  was  the  real  nature  of  the  apostolical  office  ?  We  may 
obtain  a  full  answer  to  this  question,  by  attending  to  the  three 
following  inquiries:  What  were  the  necessary  qualifications 
for  the  apostolical  office  ?  What  were  its  peculiar  functions  ? 
And,  what  were  its  credentials  ? 

First.  Wliat  were  the  necessary  qualifications  for  the  apos- 
tolical office  ? 


70  THE  CHURCH, 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  indispensable  to  the  holding  of  this 
office,  that  the  person  should  have  seen  the  Lord;  at  least,  that 
he  should  have  seen  him  once,  after  his  resurrection.  The  rea- 
son for  this  will  appear,  w^hen  we  come  to  consider  the  peculiar 
functions  of  the  apostleship. 

That  having  seen  the  Lord,  was  understood  by  the  apostles 
themselves  to  be  a  necessary  qualification  for  entering  into  their 
office,  appears  most  conclusively  from  the  account  we  have  of 
the  election  of  Matthias  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas.  Peter,  in 
proposing  the  designation  of  candidates,  from  whom  the  choice 
should  be  made  by  lot,  thus  describes  those  from  among  whom 
they  might  be  selected:  Acts  i:  21,  22 — "Wherefore,  of  these 
men  which  have  companied  with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism 
of  John,  unto  thai  sa7ne  day  that  he  ivas  taken  up  from  us, 
must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrec- 
tion." Comment  is  needless.  The  apostles  understood  that  the 
selection  must  be  made  from  a  particular  class  of  persons, 
namely,  those  who  had  been  with  them,  and  who  had  a  personal 
acquaintance  with  Christ. 

After  our  Lord's  ascension,  when  it  pleased  him  to  call  one 
to  the  apostleship  who  had  not  seen  him  during  his  personal 
ministry,  or  subsequently,  during  the  forty  days  that  he 
remained  on  earth,  he  personally  appeared  to  him,  with  the 
very  intent  of  obviating  this  difficulty,  and  said, —  see  Acts 
xxvi :  1 6, —  "  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to 
make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness,  both  of  these  things  which 
thou  hast  seen,  and  of  the  things  wherein  I  will  appear  unto 
thee."  Compare  this  with  what  Ananias  said  to  Saul,  three 
days  afterward  in  the  city  of  Damascus, —  see  Acts  xxii:  14, 
15, —  "The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou 
shouldest  know  his  will,  and  see  (hat  Just  One,  and  shouldest 
hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth,  for  thou  shalt  be  his  witness  unto 
all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard."  To  this  fact,  at  a 
subsequent  time,  when  Paul  felt  it  to  be  incumbent  on  him  to 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  71 

establish  his  title  to  the  apostolical  office,  which  had  probably 
been  called  in  question  on  the  very  ground  of  his  not  having 
had  a  personal  acquaintance  with  Christ  during  his  abode  on 
earth,  he  appealed  for  proof, —  see  1  Cor.  ix:  1, —  "Am  I  not 
an  apostle?  Am  I  not  free?  have  I  not  seen  the  Lord?'''' 
Read  also  in  the  same  epistle,  chapter  xv :  5  -  9, —  "  And  that 
he  w^as  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve;  after  that  he  was 
seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once;  of  whom  the 
greater  part  remain  at  this  present,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep. 
After  that  he  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  all  the  apostles.  And 
last  of  all,  he  was  seen  of  me  also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due 
time,  for  I  am  the  least  of  all  the  apostles."  What  does  he 
mean  by  this  ?  What  can  he  mean  by  it,  in  the  connection  in 
which  it  stands,  except  that,  by  the  miraculous  vision  of  Christ, 
with  which  he  was  favored,  he  had  been,  as  it  were,  untimely 
born,  or  brought  into  a  condition  of  competency  to  receive  the 
office  to  which  Christ  had  called  him  ?  His  seeing  the  Saviour 
was  in  some  sense  a  birth  to  him ;  in  some  important  respect,  it 
changed  his  condition,  and  gave  him  a  standing  which  he  had 
not  before. 

Now,  if  it  be  said,  that  Paul  has  reference  here  solely  to  his 
conversion,  I  reply  —  In  what  sense,  then,  does  he  use  the 
expression,  "  out  of  due  time  ?  "  The  proper  time,  and  the  only 
proper  time  for  Paul  to  be  converted,  was  the  time  when  he 
first  received  full  and  decisive  evidence  of  the  messiahship  of 
Jesus.  His  conversion  then,  was  not  out  of,  but  in  due  time; 
but  his  becoming  eligible  to  the  office  of  an  apostle  by  a 
personal  interview  with  Christ,  ivas  "  out  of  due  time."  All 
the  other  apostles  had  seen  and  conversed  with  the  Lord  while 
he  was  alive,  and  afterward,  previous  to  his  ascension ;  but  for 
Paul  alone  was  reserved  this  untimely  and  miraculous  vision  of 
him.  Beyond  all  dispute,  the  birth,  the  change  of  condition, 
or  of  standing  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  as  resulting  from 
Christ's  appearance  to  him,  was  the  change  in  his  condition,  or 
standing  in  regard  to  the  apostleship,  whereby  he  became  what 


72  THE  CHURCH, 

lie  was  not  before,  a  suitable  person  to  be  admitted  to  that 
office.  Let  any  one  consult  the  place,  and  see  if  it  is  not  bis 
apostolical,  and  not  his  chi'istian  character,  of  which  Paul  is 
speaking.  He  says  —  "  As  of  one  born  out  of  due  time,  For 
I  am  the  least  of  the  apostles,  that  am  not  meet  to  be  called 
an  apostle.  *  *  *  But  by  the  grace  of  God  I  ain  what 
I  am,  and  his  grace  was  not  bestowed  on  me  in  vain;  but 
I  labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all." 

Other  proof  is  not  wanting,  that  to  have  seen  Christ  was  an 
indispensable  qualification  for  the  apostleship;  but  the  proofs 
that  have  been  adduced,  are  amply  sufficient. 

In  the  second  place ;  it  was  equally  indispensable  that  the 
individual  assuming  the  apostolical  office  should  have  received  a 
direct  and  personal  call  thereto,  hy  Christ. 

That  the  apostles  themselves  so  understood  it,  is  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  when  they  proceeded,  whether  properly  or  impro- 
perly, to  choose  one  to  fill  the  vacant  place  of  Judas,  they  did 
not  venture  to  designate  the  person,  but  having  selected  two  as 
candidates,  they  appealed  to  the  Lord  by  a  lot,  to  select  between 
them,  or,  if  he  should  see  fit,  to  reject  them  both.  JSTo  other 
instance  of  the  kind  is  recorded  in  all  their  acts.  In  no  other 
ordination  of  a  minister,  or  of  any  so-called  apostle,  did  they 
ever  proceed  in  any  analogous  manner.  The  case  of  Paul  may 
be  referred  to  again  with  eminent  propriety  and  force ;  it  was  by 
a  direct  and  personal  divine  call,  and  by  nothing  short  of  this, 
that  he  became  an  apostle;  and  distinctly  on  this  ground,  as  well 
as  on  the  ground  of  having  seen  the  Lord,  he  vindicated  his 
claim  to  the  apostleship.  Thus,  Rom.  i:  1, —  "Paul  a  servant 
of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle."  That  he  means  spe- 
cially and  divinely  called,  called  by  Christ  himself,  we  know 
from  the  fact.  So,  2  Cor.  i:  1, —  "Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  the  will  of  GodV  Again,  1  Tim.  i:  1, —  "Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  commandment  of  God  our 
Saviour;''''  and  more  emphatically  still.  Gal.  i:  1, — "Paul,  an 
apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP,  73^ 

God  the  Father,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Now,  it  is  not 
by  a  mere  accident  of  style  that  Paul  so  often  refers  to  the  fact 
of  his  being  specially  and  personally  called  to  the  apostleship 
by  Christ,  but  there  was  a  design  in  it.  Paul  knew  that  he 
did  not  stand  upon  precisely  the  same  footing  with  the  eleven, 
and  he  knew  that  on  this  account  there  were  some,  who  would 
be  disposed  to  make  light  of  his  pretensions,  and  to  judge  that 
if  he  were  an  apostle  at  all,  he  was  at  least  not  equal  with 
the  rest.  He  felt  called  upon  to  meet  this  objection,  and  to 
assert  by  arguments,  not  only  his  official  character,  but  his 
full  equality  in  that  character  with  others.  Hence,  he  is  in  one 
place  at  the  pains  to  show,  that  he  is  "  not  a  whit  behind  the 
very  chiefest  of  the  apostles,"  and  all  along  throughout  all  his 
epistles,  it  is  a  marked  peculiarity  with  him  to  vindicate  his 
authority  by  a  continual  reference  to  the  two  great  facts  of  his 
having  seen  the  Lord,  and  of  his  having  been  called  by  him  to 
the  apostleship.  What  conclusion  is  possible,  but  that  Paul, 
knowing  his  apostleship  to  be  denied  by  some  on  the  ground  of 
his  lacking  the  necessary  qualifications  for  it,  understood  that 
these  were  the  necessary  qualifications  for  that  office,  and 
therefore  claimed  to  possess  them  ? 

It  may  be  mentioned,  as  a  fact,  that  the  official  title  of  apos- 
tle, is  nowhere  in  the  scriptures  given  to  one  whom  Christ  had 
not  personally  called  and  appointed  to  that  office. 

With  this  notice  of  the  qualifications  for  the  apostolic  office, 
we  may  proceed. 

Secondly.     To  consider  its  peculiar  functions. 

These  may  be  all  classed  under  one  general  head,  —  hearing 
witness  of  Christ,  of  his  doings  and  doctrines;  and  especially 
of  the  great  fact  upon  which  the  credibility  of  all  the  rest  de- 
pended, —  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  This  they  'were 
to  do  from  personal  knowledge ;  not  as  second-hand  and  hear- 
say witnesses,  but  as  eye-witnesses  of  the  facts,  and  as  actual 
hearers  of  the  words  spoken  by  him.  Thus  Peter  says,  2  epis- 
tle, i:  16-18,  "For  we  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised 


74  THE  CHURCH^ 

fables,  when  we  made  known  nnto  you  the  power  and  coming; 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  hut  were  eye-ivitnesses  of  his  majesty. 
For  he  received  from  God  the  Father  honor  and  glory,  when 
there  came  such  a  voice  to  him  from  the  excellent  glory,  This 
is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  And  thi& 
voice  which  came  from  Heaven  we  heard,  when  we  were  with 
him  in  the  holy  mount."  So  also,  John,  1  Epistle,  i :  1-  3^ 
"  That  which  was  from  the  beginning  which  we  have  heard, 
which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,, 
and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word  of  life ;  for  the  life 
was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it  and  hear  witness,  and 
show  unto  you  that  eternal  life  which  was  with  the  Father, 
and  was  manifested  unto  us;  that  which  we  have  seen  and 
heard  declare  we  unto  you." 

It  was  especially  that  the  twelve  might  be  qualified  to  be 
such  witnesses  of  Christ,  that  he  ordained  or  appointed  them  to 
"  be  with  him,"  during  the  time  of  his  earthly  ministry,  —  that 
they  might  see  and  hear  all  that  he  did  and  said.  To  make 
up  to  Paul  what  he  lacked  from  having  never  been  with  him 
or  seen  him,  the  risen  and  glorified  Saviour  appeared  to  him 
on  his  way  to  Damascus;  and  not  only  thus  prepared  him  to 
be  a  competent  witness  of  his  resurrection,  but  promised  him 
other  similar  appearances  and  special  revelations,  that  he  might 
in  all  respects  be  placed  on  an  equality  with  the  other  apostles. 
—  "I  have  appeared  unto  thee,"  said  Christ,  "  for  this  purpose, 
to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness,  both  of  these  things  which 
thou  hast  seen  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear 
unto  thee."  And  Paul,  in  fact,  was  an  original  and  independ- 
ent witness — just  such  as  the  nature  and  conditions  of  the 
apostleship  required.  As  he  had  not  been  made  an  apostle  "  of 
men,  neither  by  man,"  so  he  did  not  obtain  from  men  the  gos- 
pel which  he  preached.  To  the  Galatians,  he  says  —  chapter 
i:  11, 12  —  "I  certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  gospel  which  was 
preached  of  me,  is  not  after  man ;  for  I  neither  received  it  of  man, 
neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  75 

Now  let  the  reader  understand,  that  what  we  are  looking 
after,  is  that  which  was  peculiar  to  the  apostolic  oflSce,  and  dis- 
tinguished it  from  the  ordinary  office  of  the  gospel  ministry. 
What  we  desire  as  the  end  of  this  inquiry  is,  to  know  whether 
the  apostolic  office  was  intended  to  be  a  permanent  and  suc- 
cessive office  in  the  christian  church.  The  question  now  is, 
what  were  its  peculiar  and  characteristic  functions  ?  We  have 
already  answered,  by  saying  that  all  were  comprehended  in 
this,  —  to  bear  witness  from  personal  knowledge,  of  Christy 
of  his  doings  and  doctrines,  and  especially  of  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  We  challenge  the  world  to  show  any  thing 
besides  this,  appertaining  to  the  apostolic  office,  that  was 
peculiar  to  it  and  distinguished  it. 

Accounts  of  the  original  appointment  of  the  apostles  may  be 
found  in  three  places :  Matt,  x,  Mark  iii,  and  Luke  vi.  In  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Matthew  there  is  a  minute  and  full  statement 
of  the  instructions,  which,  on  that  interesting  and  solemn  occa- 
sion, our  Lord  addressed  to  them.  The  reader  may  refer  to  it 
and  satisfy  himself  that  there  is  nothing  there  contradictory  to 
my  present  statement  in  regard  to  the  pecuharity  of  their  office. 

The  final  commission  which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostles, 
just  before  his  ascension,  ought  to  throw  light  upon  this  subject 
For  the  reader's  convenience  I  will  quote  the  several  passages 
entire,  from  the  different  places  in  which  the  commission 
is  found : 

Matt.  XXVIII :  16-20.  —  "Then  the  eleven  disciples  went 
away  into  Galilee,  into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  appointed 
them. 

"  And  when  they  saw  him  they  worshiped  him :  but  some 
doubted. 

"  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 

"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ; 


76  THE   CHURCH, 

"  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you :  and,  lo^  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.     Amen." 

Mark  xvi:  14-16.  —  "Afterward  he  appeared  unto  the 
eleven,  as  they  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their  un- 
belief, and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them 
which  had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen. 

"And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature. 

"  He  that  beHeveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

Luke  xxiv :  46  - 49.  —  "And  (he)  said  unto  them.  Thus  it  is 
written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suflfer,  and  to  rise  from 
the  dead  the  third  day ; 

"  And  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem. 

"  And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things. 

"  And  behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  the  Father  upon  you." 

Acts  i  :  6-9.  —  "  When  therefore  they  were  come  together, 
they  asked  of  him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore 
again  the  kingdom  of  Israel  ? 

"  And  he  said  unto  them.  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times 
or  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power. 

"  But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you :  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me  both  in  Jerusalem 
and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part 
of  the  earth. 

"  And  w  hen  he  had  spoken  these  things,  while  they  beheld, 
he  was  taken  up." 

The  reader  discovers  two  things  simply,  in  these  records. 
First,  that  the;  apostles  received  an  ordinay  commission,  as 
ministers,  or  common  preachers  of  the  gospel,  authorizing  them 
to  do,  what  every  ordained  minister  may  do  as  well  as  they,  to 
preach  and  administer  the  sacraments.  Read  the  records  in 
Matthew  and  Mark.      And  secondly,  that  they  received  an 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  77 

extraordinary  commission,  appointing  them  to  a  work  which 
none  but  they  were  competent  to  perform,  and  in  which  they 
could  not  have  successors,  for  the  reason  that  none  after  them 
could  be  competent  to  perform  it. —  See  the  records  in  Luke 
and  Acts.  Their  extraordinary  and  peculiar  work  as  apostles, 
was,  to  hear  witness  of  Christ. — Luke  xxiv :  48  —  "  And  ye 
are  witnesses  of  these  things^  That  is,  of  the  things  spoken 
of  in  the  forty-sixth  verse  —  his  sufferings,  and  death,  and  resur- 
rection from  the  dead,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  Old 
Testament  concerning  the  true  Messiah.  They  had  been  per- 
sonally cognizant  of  the  facts,  and  being  able  to  testify  from 
their  own  knowledge,  they  were  his  chosen  and  authorized 
witnesses  of  them  to  the  world. 

To  the  same  effect,  as  indicating  their  extraordinary  and  pecu- 
liar oflSce,  according  to  the  record  in  Acts,  Christ  said  —  "  And  ye 
shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all 
Judea"  &c. 

Each  version,  therefore,  that  we  have  of  the  commission  which 
the  apostles  received  from  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  specifies 
two  classes  of  duties  or  acts  which  they  were  to  perform ;  one, 
of  duties  or  acts  which  were  to  be  performed,  in  common  with 
them,  by  all  christian  ministers :  and  one,  of  a  duty  peculiar 
to  them,  which  none  but  they  could  perform.  And  that  pecur- 
liar  service  of  the  apostles  neither  includes  the  prerogatives  of 
government  and  ordination  which,  it  is  pretended,  appertained 
to  them  exclusively,  nor  has  it  any  relation,  near  or  remote, 
to  such  prerogatives,  except  as  it  implied  a  knowledge  of 
the  Saviour's  will,  which  would  specially  qualify  them  for 
assuming,  during  their  Hfetime,  the  superior  direction  of  all 
church  affairs. 

Let  us  now  take  some  other  place,  if  we  can  find  one,  and 
happily  there  are  many,  in  which  the  peculiar  business  of  an 
apostle  is  distinctly  stated.  We  refer  the  reader  again,  in  Acts  i, 
to  the  place  where  we  have  the  account  of  the  selection  of 
Matthias  to  fill  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  apostacy  of  Judas. 


78  THE  CHURCH, 

The  twenty-first  and  twenty-second  verses  contain  the  words  to 
be  noticed :  after  Peter  had  explained  the  necessity  which  he 
supposed  existed  for  the  appointment  of  another  apostle,  he  thus 
proceeded  —  "  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have  companied 
with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among 
us,  beginning  at  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  that 
he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness 
with  us  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.''^  Observe,  he  must  be 
chosen  from  among  them  that  were  competent  to  be  witnesses^ 
having  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  matters  in  regard  to  which 
the  witnessing  was  to  be  done;  and  to  be  such  a  witness^  a 
witness  from  personal  hiowledge,  was  the  special  service  for 
which  he  was  to  he  made  an  apostle.  Could  any  thing  be 
plainer  than  this?  And,  let  it  be  further  noticed,  that  this  was 
specifically  the  view  which  the  eleven  took  of  the  apostolic 
office  held  by  themselves  —  "Wherefore  *  *  *  must  one 
be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection." 
Their  own  work  as  apostles  they  understood  to  be,  to  bear 
witness  of  Christ's  resurrection. 

Take  again,  the  case  of  Paul,  as  bearing  on  the  point  now 
under  consideration.  We  have  two  separate  accounts  of  his 
appointment  to  the  apostleship,  in  each  of  which  there  is  a 
distinct  statement  of  the  design  of  his  appointment,  and  the 
nature  of  the  service  which,  in  that  character,  he  was  to  perform. 
First,  in  Acts  xxii:  14-15,  we  have  the  words  of  Ananias: 
"  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldest 
know  his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One,  and  hear  the  words  of  his 
mouth, /or  thou  shalt  be  his  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou 
hast  seen  and  heard^''  Again,  in  Acts  xxvi :  1 6,  we  have  the 
words  of  our  Lord  himself :  "  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for 
this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness^  both  of 
these  things  which  thou  hast  seen^  and  of  those  things  in  the 
which  1  will  appear  unto  theeP  There  is  another  text,  in 
Acts  xxiii:  11,  where  the  nature  of  Paul's  apostolic  work  is 
described  in  exact  conformity  with  the  style  above  employed : 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  79 

''^The  Lord  stood  by  Mm  and  said.  Be  of  good  cheer,  Paul; 
for  as  thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusalem,  so  must  thou  bear 
witness  also  at  Rome," 

Everywhere,  in  the  sacred  narrative  of  the  labors  of  the 
apostles,  this  bearing  witness,  from  personal  knowledge,  of  Christ, 
and  particularly,  of  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead,  is  kept 
prominent,  as  the  great  thing.  Peter,  in  his  sermon  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  says,  Acts  ii :  32  — "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised 
up,  whereof  we  are  toitnessesJ^  Peter  and  the  other  apostles, 
before  the  council,  said,  Acts  v:  29-32  —  "We  ought  to  obev 
God  rather  than  men.  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus, 
whom  ye  slew  aiad  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  hath  God  exalted 
with  his  own  right  hand,  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel  and  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  we  are 
his  witnesses  of  these  things^  Again,  Acts  x:  39-41,  Peter 
at  Cesarea  declared  — "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  all  things 
which  he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem ; 
whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  God  raised  up 
the  third  day,  and  showed  him  openly ;  and  he  commanded  us 
to  preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  was  he  which 
was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead^'' 
And  John  tells  us.  Rev.  i:  9,  th&t  he  "was  in  the  isle  that  is 
called  Patmos,  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony  of 
Jesusr  His  banishment  was  for  preaching  the  gospel,  and  for 
hearing  witness  of   Christ, 

We  have  thus  shown,  as  we  think,  by  testimony  which  can  not 
fail  to  carry  convietion  to  every  unbiassed  mind,  what  was  the 
peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office.  It  was  not  to  govern  the 
church,  and  U  ordain  ministers,  but  to  bear  witness^  from  per- 
sonal  knowledge,  of  Christ,  and  particularly^  of  his  resurrec- 
tion. In  the  performance  of  this  general  duty,  they  not  only 
testified  orally  to  men,  while  they  Hved,  but  they  wrote  down 
their  testimony  for  all  succeeding  generations  —  which  we  have 
in  the  gospels  and  epistles,  composed,  as  their  oral  testimony 
lyas  delivered,  under  a  divine  inspiration,  preserving  them  from 


80  THE  CHURCH, 

errors,  and  according  to  the  Saviour's  promise  ( Jolin  xiv :  26) 
teaching  them  all  things,  and  bringing  all  things  to  their 
remembrance,  whatsoever  Christ  had  spoken  unto  them.  As 
witnesses  for  Christ,  they  also  presided  over  the  formation  and 
establishment  of  the  Christian  church,  directing  and  ordering 
all  things  in  accordance,  undoubtedly,  with  instructions  which 
he  had  given  them  during  his  life  time,  and  subsequently^ 
previous  to  his  ascension. 

:  Now^  Episcopalians  tell  us,  that  the  peculiar  functions  of  the 
apostolic  office  were,  to  govern  the  church  and  ordain  ministers. 
Where  do  they  get  it  ?  Is  it  not  very  singular,  if  that  were 
the  case,  that  neither  in  their  commission,  nor  in  one  solitary 
place  where  the  design  of  their  appointment  is  stated,  is  there 
the  faintest  allusion  to  any  such  functions  as  these  ?  Why  have 
we  no  mention  of  them  in  the  account  that  is  given  us  of  the 
appointment  of  Matthias  ?  Why  none,  in  the  repeated  accounts 
by  Paul  of  his  own  call  and  consecration  to  this  work  ?  Why 
is  the  work  of  an  apostle  ahvays  that  which  we  have  described  — 
to  hear  ivitness,  from  personal  knowledge^  of  Christ  —  and 
never  that  which  our  opponents  pretend  it  was,  to  govern  and 
ordain?  Must  not  this  appear,  to  our  Episcopal  friends,  a  very 
remarkable  circumstance  ? 

•  But  Episcopalians  say,  "  Look  at  the  facts ; "  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  our  citation  of  plain  and  positive  records,  as  to  what 
the  great  and  essential  peculiarity  of  the  apostleship  was,  they 
refer  us  to  the  facts  that  the  apostles  did  govern  the  church  and 
ordain  ministers.  We  do  not  deny  that  they  did  so.  We  only 
deny  that  to  do  these  things  was  properly  and  peculiarly  apos- 
tolical worJc.  We  deny  that  to  govern  and  ordain  were 
properly  and  peculiarly  apostolic  functions.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  apostles  were  preslijters  also ;  and  we 
maintain,  that  so  far  as  they  acted  officially  in  the  government 
of  the  church,  and  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  they  a<)ted 
in  their  presbyterial,  and  not  in  their  apostolical  character. 
This   we   confirm:  firsts  by  the   fact  which  has   been  made 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  81 

already  to  appear  —  that  to  do  these  things  was  not  included 
in  their  ajDOstolical  warrant ;  and  secondly,  by  the  fact  which 
will  be  made  equally  apparent  by  and  by  —  that  to  do  these 
things  was  proper  presbyterial  work.  The  apostles  were 
the  men  of  course,  and  of  necessity,  to  take  the  lead,  and  to 
appear  at  the  head  of  every  thing  while  they  lived.  Their 
knowledge,  from  having  been  with  Christ  and  received  his 
personal  instructions,  and  their  inspiration,  sufficiently  indicated 
them,  so  long  as  they  continued  in  the  church,  as  absolute  and 
authoritative  directors  in  all  matters ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  for- 
gotten, that  at  the  beginning  there  were  no  ministers  in  the 
church,  of  any  kind,  except  themselves ;  so  that  what  was  done, 
was  of  necessity  done  by  them. 

The  supremacy  of  the  apostles,  as  such,  in  the  church,  resulted 
from  their  peculiar  character  as  witnesses  of  Christ.  They,  and 
they  only,  knew  his  doctrines  and  his  will.  They,  and  they 
only,  were  competent  to  say  what  directions  the  master  had 
left  behind  him,  for  the  ordering  of  his  kingdom.  They  had 
been  chosen  and  personally  instructed  by  him  for  this  especial 
purpose ;  and  they  had  his  spirit  to  assist  and  guide  them  in 
their  work.  This,  of  itself,  while  they  lived,  made  them  rulers. 
They  had  "  the  mind  of  Christ,"  so  that  in  them  Christ  still 
lived.  They  were  in  his  stead,  and  their  word  was  Christ's 
word.  During  their  life-time  they  were  governors,  not  in  officio, 
but  ex  officio.  Government  was  not  their  proper  office,  but  in 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  it  was  an 
unavoidable  contingent  of  their  proper  office  as  witnesses.  We 
are  prepared  now  to  consider 

Thirdly.  The  credentials  of  the  apostleship.  What  were 
the  marks  of  a  true  apostle  ?  I  begin  here  by  referring  to  the 
words  cf  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  vii:  12  —  "Truly  the  signs  of  an 
apostle  were  wrought  among  you  in  all  patience,  in  signs,  and 
wonders,  and  mighty  deeds,^''  ISTow  it  is  to  be  remembered, 
that  Paul  had  been  called  to  the  apostleship  in  a  miraculous 
way,  and  that  for  the  actuality  of  his  call,  he  was  himself^ 
5* 


82  THE  CHURCH, 

almost,  if  not  quite,  the  only  witness.  They  that  journeyed  with 
him,  at  the  time  when  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  on  his  way  to 
Damascus,  could,  if  summoned  to  give  their  testimony,  confirm 
some  of  the  circumstances  in  his  most  wonderful  narration ;  for 
they  saw  the  light,  and  all  fell  to  the  earth,  overwhelmed  by  the 
awful  glories  of  the  vision ;  but  they  did  not  hear  the  voice  that 
conversed  with  Saul ;  and  of  that,  which  was  the  main  thing, 
they  could  say  nothing.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  Paul 
should  be  able  to  establish  his  claims  to  the  apostleship  by  some- 
thing: more  than  a  mere  verbal  declaration  of  what  he  had 
seen  and  heard.  If  there  w^ere  "  signs  of  an  apostle^^^  whereby 
one  called  of  God  to  the  performance  of  that  high  mission, 
might  be  certainly  accredited  and  known,  it  was  indispensable 
that  he  should  be  able  to  produce  them.  From  the  text  that 
has  been  quoted  we  learn, —  First,  the  fact,  that  there  ivere  such 
^^ signs  of  an  ajcfostle  "  as  those  of  which  I  have  just  spoken; 
and  secondly,  we  learn  what  the  "  signs  of  an  apostle  "  w^ere. 
To  establish  their  credit  among  men  as  his  ivitnesses,  Christ 
had  endowed  his  apostles  with  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
of  doing  the  same  things  in  his  name,  which  he  himself  had 
been  wont  to  da  in  confirmation  of  his  own  claims  to  be  the 
messiah.  I  am  well  aware  that  it  may  be  said,  that  in  the 
early  days  of  the  church  the  power  of  working  miracles  was 
not  confined  to  the  apostles,  and  therefore  could  not  be  regarded 
as  especially  a  badge  or  credential  of  apostleship ;  but  I  reply, 
that  this  is  a  mere  evasion :  the  power  of  working  miracles  was 
the  proof  of  whatever  was  sought  to  be  proved  by  such  means. 
Christ's  miracles  were  wrought  in  attestation  of  his  mossiah- 
ship ;  and  they  proved  his  messiahship.  The  miracles  of  the 
apostles  were  wrought  in  attestation  of  their  apostleship ;  and 
they  proved  their  apostleship.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  others 
in  the  early  church  ever  performed  miraculous  works  to  prove 
that  theg  were  apostles,  then  something  will  be  made  out  against 
the  position  I  have  taken.  My  position  simply  is,  that  the  power 
of  working  miracles  was  an  essential  testimony  of  apostleship 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  83 

to  them  who  claimed  to  be  apostles;  and  that  none  were 
received  as  apostles,  who  did  not  show  this  sign.  Paul  said  to 
the  Corinthians,  "  And  truly  the  signs  of  an  ajoostle  were 
wrought  among  you,"  &c.  Those  "signs,  and  wonders,  and 
mighty  deeds,"  therefore,  which  he  had  wrought,  were  under- 
stood to  be  proofs  of  his  apostolical  authority,  and  not  only 
so,  but  they  were  understood  to  be  the  signs  always,  in  every 
instance,  by  which  one  claiming  to  be  an  apostle  verified  his 
commission. 

Besides  working  miracles,  in  the  proper  sense  of  such  lan- 
guage, the  apostles  had  the  peculiar  and  exclusive  power  of 
imparting  miraculous  gifts  of  the  spirit,  by  the  imposition  of 
hands ;  and  to  aid  them  in  the  important  and  most  responsible 
work  which  devolved  on  them,  not  as  apostles  merely,  but  as 
ordinary  ministers,  in  the  original  founding  and  establishing  of 
the  christian  church,  and  in  the  selection  of  persons  to  take  part 
with  them  in  their  ministry,  they  seem  to  have  enjoyed,  to  a 
very  great  extent,  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  discerning  spirits, 
of  knowing  the  inmost  thoughts  and  real  characters  of  men. 
It  is  needless  to  furnish  proof  on  these  points. 

Having  now  shown  what  were  the  essential  qualifications  of 
the  apostleship,  what  were  its  peculiar  functions,  and  what  were 
its  credentials,  we  are  ready  for  the  main  question :  Was  the 
apostleship  designed  to  he  a  permanent  and  successive  office  in 
the  church?  There  is  no  presumption,  certainly,  in  sapng  that 
this  question  is  already  answered.  If  it  has  been  estabhshed 
that  none  could  be  apostles  who  had  not  seen  the  Lord,  and 
who  were  not  directly  and  personally  called  by  him  —  that  the 
peculiar  and  proper  functions  of  the  apostolic  office  were  all 
comprehended  under  the  general  description  of  hearing  luitness, 
from  personal  knowledge,  of  Christ;  and  that  the  requisite 
"  signs  of  an  apostle  "  were  miracles,  then  the  question  now 
before  us,  is  effectually  and  finally  disposed  of.  The  apostles,  as 
such,  were  to  have  no  successors.  They  could  have  none.  As 
such,  they  are  still  present  in  the  church,  witnessing  to  us  by 


84  THE  CHURCH, 

their  writings.  They  were  the  apostles  while  they  hved. 
They  are  the  apostles  now ;  and  to  the  end  of  time,  they  will 
continue  to  be  the  apostles  —  unsucceeded,  for  the  simple  and 
sufficient  reasons,  that  in  the  nature  of  things,  without  a  succes- 
sion of  such  miracles  as  were  wrought  in  the  case  of  Paul,  no 
succession  could  take  place;  and  that  the  great  head  of  the 
church  has  never  seen  fit  to  perpetuate  the  succession  by  such 
miraculous  means. 

At  this  point  I  desire  to  introduce  certain  testimonies,  which 
can  not  fail  to  have  weight  with  the  reader.  And  first,  though 
an  anonymous  helper  of  Mr.  Schuyler  has  endeavored  —  see 
Mr.  Schuyler's  book,  page  219  — to  show,  that  in  quoting  this 
author  in  my  sermon,  I  perverted  his  meaning,  I  ofier  again 
the  testimony  of  Dr.  Barrow.  The  reader  will  be  able  to  judge 
whether  it  is  in  point.  I  shall  quote  this  time,  I  trust,  more  to 
the  satisfaction  of  my  reviewers.  —  See  Barrow  on  the  Supre- 
macy of  the  Pope,  pp.  122,  123,  124. 

"  The  apostohcal  office,  as  mch,  was  personal  and  temporary ; 
and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  successive, 
or  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  descendence  from  them. 

"  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinary,  conferred  in  a 
special  manner,  designed  for  special  purposes,  discharged  by 
special  aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful  for 
the  propagation  of  Christianity  and  founding  of  churches. 

"  To  that  office  it  was  requisite,  that  the  person  should  have 
an  immediate  designation  and  commission  from  God;  such  as 
St.  Paul  doth  so  often  insist  upon  for  asserting  his  title  to  the 
office:  Paul,  an  apostle,  not  from  men,  or  hy  man. —  Gal.  i:  1. 
'  Not  by  men^  saith  St.  Chrysostom ,  *  this  is  a  property  of  the 


"  It  was  requisite  that  an  apostle  should  be  able  to  attest 
concerning  our  Lord's  resurrection  or  ascension,  either  immedi- 
ately, as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident  consequence,  as  St.  Paul ; 
thus  St.  Peter  implied,  at  the  choice  of  Matthias,  Acts  i :  21,  22  : 
Wherefore  of  these  men  which  have  companied  with  us     *     * 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  85 

must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  the  resur- 
rection; and,  1  Cor.  ix:  1,  xv:  8,  Am  I  not,  saith  St.  Paul, 
an  apostle?  have  I  not  seen  the  Lord?  according  to  that 
of  Ananias,  Acts  xxii:  14,  15,  The  God  of  our  Fathers  hath 
chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldest  know  his  will,  and  see  that 
Just  One,  and  shotddest  hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth;  for  thou 
shall  bear  witness,  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and 
heard, 

"  It  was  needful,  also,  that  an  apostle  should  be  endowed  with 
miraculous  gifts  and  graces,  enabling  him,  both  to  assure  his 
authority  and  to  execute  his  office;  wherefore  St.  Paul  calleth 
these,  2  Cor.  xii:  12,  Rom.  xv:  18,  the  marks  of  an  apostle, 
the  which  were  lurought  by  him  among  the  Corinthians 
in  all  patience,  or  perseveringly,  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and 
mighty  deeds. 

"  It  was  also,  in  St.  Chrysostom's  opinion,  proper  to  an 
apostle,  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his  discretion,  in  a 
certain  and  conspicuous  manner  to  impart  spiritual  gifts ;  as  St. 
Peter  and  St.  John  did  at  Samaria ;  which  to  do,  according  to 
that  father,  was  the  peculiar  gift  and  privilege  of  the  apostles. 
Chrys.  in  Acts  riii:  18. 

"  It  was  also  a  privilege  of  an  apostle,  by  virtue  of  his  com- 
mission from  Christ,  to  instruct  all  nations  in  the  doctrine  and 
law  of  Christ;  he  had  right  and  warrant  to  exercise  his  func- 
tion everywhere;  his  charge  was  universal  and  indefinite;  the 
whole  world  ivas  his  province.  —  Chrys.  in  John  xxi.  He  was 
not  affixed  to  any  one  place,  nor  could  be  excluded  from  any ; 
he  was,  as  St.  Cyril  calleth  him,  —  Cyril,  in  Gen.  vii,  —  an  oecu- 
menical judge,  and  an  instructor  of  all  the  sub-celestial  world. 

"Apostles  also  did  govern  in  an  absolute  manner,  according 
to  discretion,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to  the 
which  they  might  upon  occasion  appeal  and  affirm.  —  Acts  xv : 
28,  It  hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  its.  Whence 
their  writings  have  passed  for  inspired,  and  therefore  canonical, 
or  certain  rules  of  faith  and  practice. 


86  THE  CHURCH, 

"  It  did  belong  to  them  to  found  churclies,  to  constitute  pas- 
tors, to  settle  orders,  to  correct  offenses,  to  perform  all  such  acts 
of  sovereign  spiritual  power,  in  virtue  of  the  same  divine  assist- 
ance, according  to  the  authority  which  the  Lord  had  given 
them  for  edification;  as  we  see  practised  by  St.  Paul. 

"  In  fine,  the  the  apostleship  was,  as  St.  Chrysostom  telleth 
us,  —  Chrys.  in  Rom.  i,  —  a  business  fraught  with  ten  thou- 
sand good,  things;  both  greater  than  all  2^rivileges  of  grace,  and 
comprehensive  of  them. 

"Now  such  an  ofiice,  consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary 
privileges  and  miraculous  powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the 
foundation  of  the  church,  and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity 
against  the  manifold  difficulties  and  disadvantages  which  it 
then  needs  must  encounter,  was  not  designed  to  continue  by 
derivation;  for  it  containeth  in  it,  divers  things,  which  appa- 
rently, (i.  e.,  evidently)  were  not  communicated,  and  which  no 
man  without  gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy  could  challenge  to 
himself. 

"  Neither  did  the  apostles  pretend  to  communicate  it :  they 
did  indeed  appoint  standing  pastors  and  teachers  in  each  church ; 
they  did  assume  fellow-laborers  or  assistants  in  the  work  of 
preaching  and  governance,  but  they  did  not  constitute  apostles, 
equal  to  themselves  in  authority,  privileges,  or  gifts ;  for,  who 
knoweth  not,  saith  St.  Austin,  i.  e.  Augustin,  (Aug.  de  Bap. 
Cont.  Don.  ii:  1,)  —  Who  knoweth  not  that  principate  of  apos- 
tleship to  be  preferred  before  any  episcopacy  ?  And  saith  Be- 
larmine,  —  Bel.  iv:  25, — The  bishops  have  no  part  of  the 
true  apostolical  authority. 

"  Wherefore  St.  Peter,  who  had  no  other  office  mentioned  in 
scripture,  or  known  to  antiquity,  beside  that  of  an  apostle, 
could  not  have,  properly  and  adequately,  any  successor  to  his 
office ;  but  it  naturally  did  expire  with  his  person,  as  did  that 
of  the  other  apostles. 

"Accordingly,  whereas  the  other  apostles,  as  such,  had  no 
successors,   the   apostolical   office    not   being   propagated,   the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  87 

primacy  of  St.  Peter,  whatever  it  were,  whether  of  order  or 
jurisdiction,  in  regard  to  his  brethren,  did  cease  with  him ;  for 
when  there  were  no  apostles  extant^  there  could  be  no  head  or 
prince  of  the  apostles  in  any  sense." 

]  trust  I  shall  not  be  accused  again  of  garbling  the  words  of 
Dr.  Barrow.  Mr.  Schuyler  and  his  anonymous  assistant  may 
perhaps  regret  that  I  have  not  garbled.  I  have  culled  nothing, 
but  have  giren  the  entire  section  on  the  point  under  considera- 
tion, as  Dr.  Barrow  left  it.  Whether  Dr.  Barrow's  views  of  the 
apostleship  are  different  from  mine,  the  reader  will  judge. 
Indeed,  while  transcribing,  I  have  felt  almost  afraid  that  I 
should  be  suspected  of  having  borrowed  my  entire  argument 
from  him,  so  exactly  do  my  reasonings  coincide  with  his. 

My  reviewer, —  see  Mr.  Schuyler's  book,  page  220, —  says, 
that  "  the  particular  subject  on  which  Dr.  Barrow  is  treating,  is 
that  there  is  no  succession,  as  Romanists  alledge,  to  the  primacy 
of  St.  PeterT  This  is  indeed  the  point  which  Dr.  Barrow  is 
aiming  to  establish;  but  in  what  way  does  he  establish  it? 
Simply  by  proving  that  Peter's  primacy  among  the  apostles 
was  not  communicable  ?  No,  but  by  proving  that  the  apostle- 
ship itself  was  not  communicable.  See  the  summing  up  of 
his  argument  in  the  last  paragraph  of  my  quotation  from  him. 
Peter's  primacy  ceased  with  him :  because,  "  whereas  the  other 
apostles,  as  such,  had  no  successors,  the  apostolical  office  was 
not  propagated;'*  consequently,  ^^tvhen  there  were  no  apostles 
extant,  there  cmdd  he  no  head  or  prince  of  the  apostles.'' 

On  the  same  page,  the  reviewer  says,  "  It  is  only  the  apos- 
tolical office,  as  characterized  by  the  inspiration,  and  miraculous 
powers  of  its  first  incumbents,  which  he  (Dr.  Barrow)  asserts 
can  have  no  succession  "  The  reader  can  not  be  deceived  by 
such  a  representation  as  this,  with  Dr.  Barrow's  OAvn  words 
before  him.  What  does  he  say?  That  the  apostles  did  not 
transmit  their  miraculous  powers?  No;  that  they  did  not 
transmit  their  ofice.  "  The  apostles,  as  such,  had  no  succes- 
sors."    After  their  death,  "  there  were  no    apostles  extant.'* 


88  THE  CHURCH, 

*'Suck  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary  privileges, 
&c.,  was  7iot  desigrud  to  continue  hy  derivation'^  ^'The  apos- 
tolical office,  as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary,  and 
therefore  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  successive." 
But  my  reviewer  says  that  Dr.  Barrow  did  not  mean  the  apos- 
tolical office,  as  suck,  but  only  "  the  apostoUcal  office  as 
characterized  by  inspiration  and  miraculous  powers /^^  If 
this  were  so,  what  would  become  of  his  argument  against  the 
pope  ?  The  very  gist  of  that  argument  is,  that  as  the  apos- 
tleship  was  not  successive,  Peter's  primacy,  of  whatever  it 
consisted,  could  not  be;  that,  as  after  the  death  of  the  first 
apostles,  there  were  no  more  apostles  extant,  there  could  be  no 
head  or  prince  of  the  apostles,"  If  he  simply  meant,  that  after 
the  first  apostles,  their  successors  ceased  to  be  endowed  with 
inspiration  and  miraculous  powers^  how  would  this  prove  that 
there  might  not  be  a  head  or  a  prince  among  their  successors, 
as  well  as  among  themselves  ?  It  might  serve  to  show  that  the 
pope's  pretensions  to  inspiration  and  miraculous  powers  are 
unfounded,  if  he  is  fool  enough  to  claim  such  things ;  but  it 
could  not  in  the  least  affect  his  claims  to  the  succession  of 
Peter's  primacy. 

Dr.  Barrow,  if  he  were  alive,  I  am  sure,  would  protest 
against  such  an  interpreter  of  his  writings,  as  Mr.  Schuyler's 
friend.  He  was  an  Episcopalian,  but  very  far  from  being  a 
believer  in  that  kind  of  apostolical  succession,  which  has  become, 
of  late,  the  popular  and  prevailing  dogma  of  modern  Episcopal 
divines. 

My  next  testimony  is  from  the  "  Synopsis  Papismi,"  of  Dr. 
Willet,  published  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  dedi- 
cated to  her;  the  author  professes  to  give  not  only  his  own 
opinion,  but  that  of  the  English  church.  The  quotations  are 
made  by  Rev.  Wra.  C.  Wianer,  in  his  book  entitled  "  Prelacy 
and  Parity,"  Dr,  Willet  says,  "Every  godly  and  faithful 
bishop  is  a  successor  of  the  apostles.  We  deny  it  not ;  and  so 
are  all  faithful  and  godly  pastors  and  ministers.     For  in  respect 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  89 

of  their  extraordinary  calling,  miraculous  gifts,  and  apostleship, 
the  apostles  have  properly  no  successors ;  as  Mr.  Bembridge, 
the  martyr,  saith,  that  he  believed  not  bishops  to  be  the  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles,  for  that  they  he  not  called  as  they  were, 
nor  have  that  grace.  That,  therefore,  which  the  apostles  were 
especially  appointed  unto,  is  the  thing  wherein  the  apostles 
were  properly  succeeded ;  but  that  was  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel :  as  St.  Paul  saith,  he  was  sent  to  preach,  not  to  baptize. 
The  promise  of  succession,  we  see,  is  in  the  preaching  of  the 
word,  which  appertaineth  as  well  to  other  pastors  and  ministers, 
as  to  bishops."  "  This," —  says  Mr.  Wisner,  and  I  perfectly 
agree  with  him, — "  is  just  as  we  believe :  the  apostles,  as  such, 
have  no  successors ;  but  as  presbyters,  or  simple  preachers  of 
the  gospel,  they  are  succeeded ;  and  every  faithful  minister  is, 
in  this  sense,  a  successor  of  the  apostlesJ^  Again,  from  Dr. 
Willet :  "  Seeing,  in  the  apostles'  time,  a  bishop  and  a  priest 
were,  neither  in  name,  nor  in  oflBce  distinguished,  it  followeth, 
then,  that  either  the  apostles  assigned  no  succession  while  they 
hved,  neither  appointed  their  successors;  or  that,  indifferently, 
all  faithful  pastors  and  preachers  of  the  apostolic  faith,  are  the 
apostles'  successors^ 

Archbishop  Whately,  in  his  "Kingdom of  Christ," page  109, 
says  —  "The  apostle  Paul,  in  speaking  of  miracles  as  'the 
signs  of  an  apostle,'  evidently  implies,  that  no  one,  not  pos- 
sessing such  miraculous  gifts  as  his,  much  less  without  possessing 
any  at  all,  could  be  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  on  a  level  with 
the  apostles."  Of  course  the  apostles,  having  no  successors  in 
the  gift  of  miracles,  have  none  in  the  apostleship. 

Similar  testimonies,  from  Episcopal  writers  of  the  highest 
authority,  might  be  quoted  indefinitely. 

I  beg  my  readers  not  to  forget  the  testimonies  from  ancient 
authors,  quoted  by  Dr.  Barrow ;  and  that  they  may  have  their 
full  weight,  I  shall  extricate  them,  and  place  them  here  in  a 
more  conspicuous  light. 


90  THE  CHURCH, 

>S^^.  Chrysostom^  on  Galatians  i :  1,  where  Paul  declares  himself 
"  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ," 
says — '^not  by  men;  this  is  a  property  of  the  apostles.''  That 
is,  to  be  directly  and  immediately  called  by  Christ  himself, 
is  a  property,  or  peculiarity,  of  the  apostles ;  this  distinguishes 
them. 

The  same  father,  on  Actsviii:  18,  declares,  that  to  communi- 
cate the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands,  was  the 
peculiar  gift  and  privilege  of  the  apostles;  by  which  Barrow 
understands  him  to  mean,  that  that  power  appertained  to  the 
apostolic  office,  as  a  mark  or  function  of  it,  so  that  its  discontin- 
uance proves  the  discontinuance  of  the  office  itself. 

Again,  on  John  xxi :  —  "  His  charge,  i.  e.,  an  apostle's,  was 
universal  and  indefinite;  the  whole  world  was  his  province.'* 

Barrow  understands  St.  Chrysostom  as  meaning,  by  this, 
that  in  this  respect,  of  the  extent  of  his  charge,  an  apostle  held 
an  office  marked  by  a  peculiarity  which  rendered  it  incommun- 
icable to  others  in  succession.  The  fact  that  no  living  bishop, 
save  the  pope  of  Rome,  lays  claim  to  any  such  extent  of  diocese, 
is  well  known.  According  to  Chrysostom,  each  modern  bishop 
should  claim  the  world  for  a  diocese,  or  not  claim  to  be  a 
successor  of  the  apostles. 

To  the  same  effect,  St.  Cyril,  on  Genesis  vii,  says,  an  apostle 
"  was  an  oecumenical  judge,  and  an  instructor  of  all  the  sub- 
celestial  world;"  that  is,  he  was  so  by  the  very  essential  nature 
of  his  apostolic  office.  Every  modern  bishop,  therefore,  like 
the  pope,  should  claim  the  same  thing,  or  according  to  St. 
Cyril,  abandon  at  once  all  pretensions  to  be  in  the  apostolic 
succession. 

St.  Augustine, —  De  Bapt  Cont.  Don.  ii:  1, —  says,  "Who 
knoweth  not  that  princi2^ate  of  apostleship  to  be  preferred 
before  any  episcopacy.^"  That  is,  who  does  not  know  that  no 
bishop  whatever  can  lay  claim  to  the  apostolic  dignity,  as  having 
succeeded  thereto  ?  So  Barrow  understands  it,  and  so  evidently 
Augustine  meant 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  91 

Bellarmine, —  Bell,  iv:  25,  says — "TAe  bishops  have  no  part 
of  the  true  apostolical  authority.'*  On  Epli.  iv:  11,  and  1  Cor. 
xii:  28,  he  says,  according  to  a  not6  of  Dr.  Barrow,  on  page 
124,  — "  The  apostles  themselves  do  make  the  apostolate  a 
distinct  office  from  pastors  and  teachers,  which  are  the  stand- 
ing (^.  e.,  the  permanent)  offices  in  the  church.'''  What  he 
means.  By  saying  that  the  apostles  themselves  make  the  apos- 
tolate a  distinct  office  from  that  of  pastors  and  teachers, 
is  explained  by  the  manner  in  which  he  qualifies  the  latter 
oflfices.  They  are  the  standing  or  permanent  offices  in  the 
church ;  the  former  were  not  understood  to  be  so  by  the  apostles 
themselves. 

These  ancient  fathers,  let  it  be  observed,  speak  with  the 
utmost  distinctness,  and  they  do  not  express  their  opinions 
doubtfully  or  hesitatingly,  as  if  they  were  on  debatable  ground. 

There  is  a  great  variety  of  argument  for  the  temporary  and 
purely  extraordinary  character  of  the  apostolical  office,  which 
has  not  been  glanced  at,  and  which  can  not  be  without  swelling 
this  volume  to  most  unjustifiable  dimensions.  There  is  one 
consideration,  however,  which,  in  concluding,  I  can  not  forbear 
to  introduce,  and  I  am  mainly  influenced  in  singling  it  out 
from  the  rest,  because  I  do  not  recollect  to  have  seen  it  any- 
where made  as  prominent  as  I  think  it  deserves  to  be. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  number  twelve^  corres- 
ponding with  the  number  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  was  designed 
to  be  the  unchangeable  number  of  the  apostles ;  and  that  the 
TWELVE  were  to  be  honored  in  the  church  in  all  ages,  as  a 
goodly,  and  glorious,  and  exclusive  fellowship, —  standing  alone, 
unequaled,  unapproached,  unresembled. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  twelve  is  eminently  a  sacred 
number,  distinguished  in  the  entire  history  of  the  church  of 
God  from  the  beginning,  in  a  manner  which  sufficiently  indi- 
cates a  special  and  peculiar  purpose  respecting  it.  To  refer  to 
a  few  of  the  instances  in  which  it  occurs,  commencing  with  the 
twelve  sons  whom  God  gave  to  Jacob,  and  the  twelve  tribes  of 


92  THE  CHURCH, 

Israel  his  people,  we  have  twelve  precious  stones  in  the  breast- 
plate of  judgment  worn  by  Aaron  and  his  successors  in  the  high 
priesthood ;  twelve  loaves  of  the  shew-bread  on  the  pure  table 
before  the  Lord  in  the  sanctuary ;  twelve  princes,  heads  of  the 
families  of  Israel ;  twelve  chargers  of  silver,  twelve  silver  bowls, 
and  twelve  spoons  of  gold,  "  in  the  dedication  of  the  altar  in 
the  day  when  it  was  anointed  by  the  princes  of  Israel."  The 
oxen  for  the  burnt  offering  were  twelve  bullocks,  the  rams  twelve, 
the  lambs  of  the  first  year  twelve,  with  their  meat-offering,  and 
the  kids  of  goats  for  a  sin-offering  twelve.  When  the  Israelites 
in  their  journeying  drew  near  to  the  promised  land,  twelve  men 
were  sent  to  search  it.  Twelve  stones  were  directed  to  be 
taken  up  out  of  Jordan,  as  they  passed  over,  to  be  placed  in  a 
heap  at  their  first  lodging-place,  for  a  memorial  of  that  day* 
Solomon  had  twelve  oJEcers  over  all  Israel,  and  twelve  images 
of  Hons  surrounded  his  throne.  The  brazen  sea  in  the  temple 
was  supported  by  twelve  brazen  bulls.  In  his  great  trial  with 
the  priests  of  Baal,  Elijah  built  his  altar  of  twelve  stones. 
Ezekiel,  in  his  vision  of  the  return  of  God's  glory,  and  the 
spiritual  house  that  was  to  be  built  for  him  to  dwell  in,  received 
directions  for  the  altar  —  that  it  should  be  twelve  cubits  long, 
and  twelve  cubits  broad.  After  our  Lord's  miracle  of  feeding 
the  five  thousand,  besides  women  and  children,  they  took  up 
of  the  fragments  that  remained  twelve  baskets  full.  Jesus  was 
twelve  years  old  when  he  first  went  up  to  Jerusalem  and  dis- 
puted with  the  doctors  in  the  temple.  The  woman  seen  in  the 
Revelation,  whom  the  dragon  persecuted,  had  upon  her  head  a 
crown  of  twelve  stars.  The  city.  New  Jerusalem,  which  John 
saw  coming  down  from  God  out  of  heaven,  had  twelve  gates, 
and  at  the  gates  twelve  angels.  The  wall  of  the  city  had  t^velve 
foundations,  and  the  twelve  gates  were  twelve  pearls.  And 
finally,  on  either  side  of  the  river  of  the  water  of  life,  which 
John  saw  proceeding  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the 
Lamb,  was  there  the  tree  of  life,  which  bare  twelve  manner  of 
fruits,  and  yielded  her  fruit  twelve  times  every  year. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  93 

From  this  recapitulation  it  appears,  as  I  have  said,  that 
twelve  is  a  sacred  number.  The  whole  analogy  of  this  might 
seem  to  be  answered  in  the  fact  that  our  Lord,  in  his  original 
appointment  of  apostles,  limited  the  number  to  twelve,  yet 
designing  that  that  number  should  be  increased ;  that  it  should 
grow  from  twelve  in  the  beginning  to  twelve  thousand,  or,  if 
need  be,  to  twelve  hundred  thousand,  in  the  course  of  time. 
I  am  satisfied,  however,  from  other  considerations,  that  his 
intention  was,  that  there  should  be  no  more  apostles,  and  that 
twelve  should  be  the  total  count  of  them  to  the  end  of  time 
and  forever. 

First.  There  seems  to  be  no  room  for  doubt,  that  such  was 
the  impression  of  Peter,  when  he  interested  himself  in  the 
election  of  Matthias,  to  fill  up  the  duodecimate  broken  by  the 
fall  of  Judas.  He  evidently  regarded  the  place  of  the  apostate 
in  the  light  of  a  vacancy.  But  how  or  why  a  vacancy^  except 
on  the  supposition  that  twelve  was  known  to  be  the  fixed  and 
definite  number  of  the  apostohc  college?  Why  should  the 
place  be  filled  at  all  ?  Why  should  not  the  number  be  left  as 
it  was  —  eleven  ?  Or,  if  Peter  felt  that  eleven  were  not  suffi- 
cient, why,  while  the  business  of  electing  was  in  hand,  should 
he  limit  the  election  to  one^  and  not  choose  two,  or  three,  or 
four,  or  any  number  of  additional  apostles  that  he  might  judge 
to  be  expedient  for  the  great  work  that  was  just  coming  upon 
them  ?  Why  was  it,  that  in  his  opinion,  the  apostles  must  be 
just  twelve^  no  more  and  no  less  ?  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be 
replied,  that  Peter  acted  upon  his  exposition  of  certain  sayings 
of  David,  which  he  supposed  to  have  reference  to  this  matter, 
and  which  are  quoted  in  the  twentieth  verse.  Granting  that 
those  expressions  of  David  had  reference  to  this  case,  according 
to  Peter's  application  of  them,  then  the  questions  that  I  have 
asked  above,  in  regard  to  the  principles  on  which  this  apostle 
acted,  become  even  more  pertinent  and  forcible  in  regard  to 
the  principles  on  which  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  proceeded,  in 
regarding  the  place  of  Judas  as  a  vacancy. — "  His  bishopric 


94  THE  CHURCH, 

(according  to  the  original,  his  charge^  his  office)  let  another  take." 
There  was,  then,  according  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  twelfth  place 
in  the  college  of  apostles;  and  as  the  prophetic  spirit  inti- 
mated nothing  more  in  the  way  of  increase,  there  was  no  place 
counting  above  the  twelfth.  Twelve  was  the  fixed  and  definite 
number  of  the  apostles,  not  to  be  changed  by  diminution  or 
by  increase. 

Secondly,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Matt,  xxix :  28  —  "  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  which  have 
followed  me,  in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall 
sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  JsraeV^  What  I  have  to 
say  upon  this  is,  that  it  is  certain  that  the  twelve  apostles^  as 
such,  as  the  twelve,  were  to  be  advanced  to  eminent  and  pecu- 
liar dignity  in  the  eternal  world.  What  is  particularly  promised 
here,  may  indeed  be  figurative,  yet  it  can  not  be  denied  or 
doubted  that  something  particular  and  peculiar  is  promised^ 
and  that  it  is  promised  to  the  twelve.  But  did  not  our  Lord 
know  that  there  were  to  be  more  apostles  than  twelve  ?  th  at 
there  were  to  be  thirteen  almost  immediately  after  his  ascension, 
by  the  election  by  lot  of  Matthias,  and  his  own  miraculous  call 
and  consecration  of  Saul  ?  and  that  the  number  was  to  be 
speedily  swelled  yet  more  by  the  appointment  of  Barnabas,  and 
Timothy,  and  Titus  ?  and  that  ere  long  the  world  was  to  be 
full  of  apostles?  If  our  Lord  knew  this,  why  but  twelve 
thrones?  Why  but  twelve  of  all  the  innumerable  multitude 
of  apostles  to  be  thus  exalted  and  distinguished  ?  If  it  shall 
be  said,  that  this  was  promised  to  the^r*^  twelve  because  of  a 
certain  precedence  to  which  they  were  entitled  on  account  of 
their  priority  in  point  of  time,  and  also  of  the  pecuhar  hardships 
and  dangers  to  which  they  were  exposed  as  the  founders  of  his 
church,  then  I  reply,  that  although  this  promise  was  made  when 
Judas  was  yet  in  good  standing,  he  of  couree  is  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  an  inheritor  of  one  of  those  thrones,  and  there  arises 
a  serious  competition  between  Matthias  and  Paul.     There  is  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  95 

vacant  throne  for  one  of  them,  and  for  but  one.  Which  shall 
have  it?  Matthias  —  as  having  been  an  ai^ostle  Jirst^  Then 
what  becomes  of  Paul,  who  claimed  to  be  "  not  a  whit  behind 
the  very  chiefest  of  the  apostles,"  and  "  in  labors  more  abundant 
than  they  all  ? "  Is  he  to  share  the  common  lot  of  such  second- 
rate  apostles  as  Timothy,  and  Titus,  and  Barnabas,  and  in 
modern  times,  Ives,  and  Delancy,  and  Doane  ?  Rejecting  such 
a  thought  as  wholly  inadmissible,  shall  the  throne  be  assigned 
to  Paul  on  the  score  of  his  eminent  services  ?  Then  equally 
sad  seems  to  be  the  case  of  Matthias,  who,  it  is  claimed,  was 
an  apostle  while  Paul  was  a  persecutor;  and  who  was  one  of 
those  that  companied  with  Jesus  from  the  time  of  his  baptism, 
to  the  time  of  his  ascension. 

The  supposition  that  the  apostles  were  to  have  successors  in 
the  apostleship,  and  that  the  twelve  thrones  were  promised  to 
the  first  twelve  by  reason  of  priority  in  point  of  time  and 
labors,  meets  with  an  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  conflicting 
claims  of  Paul  and  Matthias.  We  deny,  for  reasons  that  will 
be  shown  hereafter,  that  Matthias  was  an  apostle,  and  affirm, 
on  the  basis  of  the  text  now  under  consideration,  that  in  the 
purpose  of  Christ,  the  number  of  apostles  was  limited  to  twelve. 
We  affirm,  that  to  all  eternity  the  apostles  are  to  be  twelve^ 
among  all  the  redeemed,  a  conspicuous,  glorious,  unassociated 
duodecimate. 

Again:  we  invite  attention  to  the  fourteenth  verse  of  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  Revelation,  where  occurs  a  description 
of  "  the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem," — "And  the  wall  of  the  city 
had  twelve  foundations,  and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve 
apostles  of  the  Lamh."  The  question  is,  why  "  of  the  twelve 
apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  if  there  were  thirteen^  and  even  more? 
Why  of  the  twelve,  if  there  were  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  real  apostles  in  the  church?  Will  any  one  give  a 
satisfactory  reply  ?  If  the  same  reply  shall  be  attempted  as  in 
the  case  of  the  thrones,  then  we  press  the  same  difficulty, — 
Whose  is  the  twelfth  name  ?     Surely  not  the  traitor's.     Then 


96  THE  CHURCH, 

whose  ?  There  is  a  twelfth  apostle,  whose  name  is  in  the  foun- 
dation of  the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem, — Who  is  that  twelfth 
apostle?  I  propose  the  problem  for  Mr.  Schuyler's  solution  in 
his  next  book,  or  in  the  appendix  to  his  next  edition  of  the 
last.  I  affirm,  and  I  do  it  with  the  utmost  confidence,  that  he 
who  gave  this  revelation  to  John,  knew  of  but  twelve  apostles 
then  being  or  to  be,  while  the  world  should  stand.  The  num- 
ber of  them  in  his  mind  was  fixed,  unchangeable  as  his  own 
nature  or  name. 

We  infer  the  same  thing  also  from  a  text  much  used  by 
Episcopalians  in  this  controversy:  it  is  in  Eph.  ii:  20, — "And 
are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone."  That  Paul 
here  had  reference  to  the  twelve  apostles  who  testified  from 
personal  knowledge  of  Christ,  will  hardly  be  denied.  If  this 
shall  be  denied,  my  argument,  in  the  main  purpose  of  it,  will 
not  be  affected.  I  affirm,  that  he  spoke  of  the  twelve,  and  the 
whole  current  usage  of  the  sacred  writers  when  they  speak  of 
"  the  apostles,"  as  such,  sustains  my  affirmation.  In  every  case 
the  reference  is  to  the  original  company  of  our  Lord's  apostles, 
authorized  and  appointed  by  him.  In  the  text,  the  apostles 
are  associated  with  the  prophets,  whose  number  was  completed 
by  Malachi,  whom  the  Jews  called  the  seal  of  prophecy, 
because  with  him  the  succession  of  prophets  ended ;  and  with 
Christ,  the  one  and  only  Saviour.  The  prophets  witnessed, 
by  inspiration,  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour  to  come ;  and  the  apostles, 
by  inspiration  and  personal  knowledge,  witnessed  of  him  as  a 
Saviour  who  had  come,  and  finished  his  work.  Christ,  there- 
fore, is  appropriately,  and  with  great  force,  called  the  corner 
stone  of  the  spiritual  house  into  which  his  people  are  built; 
while  the  apostles  and  the  prophets,  not  as  persons,  of  course, 
but  by  their  testimony  of  him,  by  the  truth  which  they 
promulgated,  are  represented  as  constituting  the  residue  of  the 
foundation.  There  can  be  no  more  prophets ;  there  can  be  no 
other  Saviour ;  there  can  be  no  more  apostles.     The  prophets 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP,  97 

finished  their  work,  and  received  their  reward.  Christ  finished 
his  work,  and  entered  into  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him. 
So  the  apostles  finished  their  woi'k,  and  went  to  heaven.  Pro- 
phets, apostles,  and  Christ  himself,  as  a  suffering  redeemer,  had 
each  their  place  and  their  time  in  the  work  assigned  to  them. 
They  stood  in  their  several  places,  filled  up  their  several  times, 
and  inherited  their  several  rewards.  Still  they  all  live,  in  the 
living  foundation  of  the  living  temple.  Prophets  and  apostles, 
by  their  recorded  testimonies  in  the  living  word,  and  Christ,  by 
his  own  testimony,  and  by  his  omnipotent  power  and  grace 
filling  and  pervading  the  whole  habitation  of  his  earthly 
glory. 

When  we  read  of  the  foundation  of  the  spiritual  house  as 
composed  of  "  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone,"  we  are  directed  backward  to  the  past. 
We  do  not  look  for  the  foundation  in  the  upper  parts  of  a 
building,  but  at  the  bottom ;  so,  for  the  foundation  of  Christ's 
spiritual  house,  or  for  those  who  laid  it  by  their  testimony,  and 
toil,  and  tears,  and  blood,  we  look  down,  through  the  successive 
ages  of  its  erection,  to  the  foundation's  place  and  time.  There 
we  find  prophets ;  there  we  find  apostles ;  there  we  find  the 
suflfering,  dying  Christ,  and  none  of  them  succeeded,  but  all 
personally  immortal  in  their  incommunicable  offices,  and  in  the 
endless  eflScacy  of  their  several  finished  works. 

If  it  shall  be  said,  counting  Judas  as  one  of  the  original 
apostles,  that  we  ourselves  make  thirteen,  by  admitting  the 
apostfeship  of  Paul ;  we  reply,  that  if  it  is  proper,  which  we  do 
not  at  all  believe,  to  consider  Judas  as  ever  having  been  an 
apostle  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  who  was  dead  and 
damned  before  the  new  dispensation  was  introduced,  and  be- 
fore the  true  apostolic  commission  was  conferred;  still,  at  the 
time  of  Paul's  enrollment  in  this  honored  company,  his  name 
was  utterly  stricken  from  the  catalogue,  and  was  regarded  as 
though  it  never  had  been  there.  He  had  fallen  as  a  star  from 
heaven,  and  his  place  had  become  a  blank.  Certain  it  is,  that 
6 


98  THE  CHURCH, 

he  was  no  apostle  in  the  christian  church.     Paul,  therefore, 
was  not  the  thirteenth  apostle,  but  the  twelfth. 

I  am  not  alone  in  supposing  that  the  apostolic  office,  strictly 
speaking,  was  not  conferred  until  the  time  of  our  Lord's 
ascension,  and  that  it  never,  therefore,  in  any  proper  sense, 
appertained  to  Judas. 

Bloomfield,  in  his  Digest,  on  John  xx:  22,  has  the  following 
passage,  in  which  his  own  opinion  is  most  clearly  expressed : 
"  Having  thus  manifested  himself  to  his  disciples,  confirmed 
their  faith,  and  filled  their  hearts  with  joy,  our  Lord  prepares 
to  depart^  by  bidding  them  an  affectionate  eirene  umin;  but  he 
previously,  in  a  very  remarkable  manner,  instructs  them  on  the 
nature  of  their  future  office.  (Tittman.)  These  words  were 
addressed  to  the  disciples  as  future  apostles,  and  therefore,  are 
to  them  only  to  be  referred,  and  not  to  all  teachers  of  the 
gospel."  Bloomfield  is  such  excellent  authority  with  all  Epis- 
copalians, that  no  other  can  be  desired,  though  other  and  equally 
good  authorities  might  be  cited. 

Having  thus  considered,  and  as  we  think  established  by 
irrefragible  arguments,  the  incommunicableness  of  the  apostolic 
office,  and  that  it  w^as  not  intended  that  the  first  apostles,  as 
such,  should  have  successors  in  the  church,  we  proceed  now  to 
notice,  as  briefly  as  may  be,  the  arguments  by  which  Episco- 
palians of  a  certain  order  seek  to  maintain  the  contrary. 


ITS  MINISTRY  A]N"D  WORSHIP.  99 


EPISCOPAL  ARGUMENTS 

FOR  THE  PERMANENCE  AND  SUCCESSIVENESS    OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 
OFFICE. 

All  that  class  of  arguments  which  Episcopalians  derive  from 
the  apostles'  commission,  and  from  the  promises  which  they 
received  of  perpetual  grace,  and  from  the  fact  that,  at  the  time 
of  our  Lord's  ascension,  the  whole  ministry  of  the  church  was 
in  their  hands,  we  have  sufficiently  considered  already.  That 
the  twelve  were  appointed  to  an  ordinary,  as  w^ell  as  to  an 
extraordinary  ministry;  or,  if  the  terms  are  better  liked,  to  a 
presbyterial  as  well  as  to  an  apostolic  charge,  can  not  be 
denied.  Let  any  view  whatever  be  taken  of  what  was  strictly 
and  peculiarly  the  nature  of  the  apostolic  office,  still,  it  must 
be  admitted,  that  the  apostles  were  appointed  to  preach  and 
administer  the  sacraments,  i  e.,  to  do  the  work  of  simple  and 
ordinary  ministers.  In  fact,  they  held  two  offices.  They  were 
apostles,  and  they  were  ministers  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
latter  word.  Mr.  Schuyler  himself  admits  this.  See  his 
book,  page  seventy-two  —  speaking  of  the  presbytery  that 
ordained  Timothy,  he  asks  "  Who  composed  this  presbytery  ? " 
and  replies  —  "  It  may  have  been  composed  only  of  apostles,  for 
we  know  that  both  Peter  and  John  style  themselves  *  elders '  or 
i  presbyters. ' "  He  means,  that  since  the  apostles  were  also 
presbyters,  there  is  no  objection  to  the  idea  that  they  alone 
composed  that  presbytery.  They  were,  then,  ^:>res5y^ers,  or 
simple  ministers  of  the  gospel  like  Mr.  Schuyler  and  myself. 
Now,  it  is  needless  to  say,  that  it  can  be  proved,  from  the  terms 
of  their  commission,  or  from  the  promises  which  they  received 
of  perpetual  grace,  or  from  the  fact  of  their  holding,  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  ascension,  the  whole  ministry  of  the  church 
in  their  hands,  which  they  were  to  perpetuate  by  succession, 
that  the  apostleship  was  to  be  so  perpetuated.  Indeed,  Epis- 
copalians do  not  rely  upon  these  arguments.     The  inteUigent 


100  THE  CHURCH, 

amono-  them  admit  that  the  decisive  question  relates  to  a  matter 
of  simple  fact —  Was  the  apostleship  communicated?  Did 
the  apostles,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  transfer  their  apostolical 
authority  to  others?  Did  they  make  other  apostles?  This 
is  the  great  question,  and  we  accept  of  it  as  decisive.  If  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  apostleship  was  actually  transferred,  we 
yield  the  controversy,  and  own  that  episcopacy  has  won  the 
field ;  if  it  can  not  be,  our  opponents  are  in  that  predicament 
themselves,  and  the  field  is  ours. 


THE  CASE  OF  MATTHIAS. 

The  case  first  cited,  to  prove  that  the  apostleship  was  com- 
municable, and  to  establish  the  fact  of  a  succession,  is  that  of 
Matthias.  I  meet  this  with  a  direct  denial  that  Matthias  ever 
received  the  apostolical  oflace ;  maintaining  that  the  action  of 
Peter  and  the  other  disciples  in  his  case,  recorded  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Acts,  was  irregular,  and  wholly  without  effect.  I 
wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  I  assume  ground  here 
not  ordinarily  taken  by  Presbyterian  writers,  and  not  at  all 
essential  in  this  controversy.  For,  let  it  be  admitted  that 
Matthias  was  an  apostle,  and  what  then  ?  —  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  apostleship  was  communicable  in  any  such  sense  as  is 
claimed  by  Episcopalians.  The  admission  overthrows  a  single 
argument  which  I  have  employed  —  that  based  upon  the 
unchangeableness  of  the  apostolic  number;  but  it  does  not 
establish  the  fact  of  a  succession,  such  as  is  contended  for  by 
our  opponents.  The  case  of  Matthias  is  entirely  without 
value  to  them,  however  it  it  be  considered ;  for  — 

First.  Matthias  was  chosen,  not  to  increase  the  number  of 
the  apostolic  college,  but  to  fill  a  vacancy.  He  was  chosen  to 
take  the  place  which  should  have  been  occupied  by  Judas. 
The  utmost  that  any  one  can  think  of  arguing  from  this,  is 
that  the  original  number  of  apostles  was  to  be  kept  good  in 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  101 

tlie  cliurch  on  earth,  by  regularly  supplying  the  places  of  such 
as  should  apostatize  or  die.  Peter  judged  that  it  was  right 
and  expedient  for  him  and  those  that  were  with  him,  to  fill  the 
existing  vacancy.  Where  is  the  intimation  in  all  that  he  said 
or  did,  that  he  would  have  felt  at  liberty,  in  any  case,  to  go 
farther,  and  choose  more  apostles  ?  His  whole  conduct  and 
manner  show  that  he  was  perfectly  conscious  of  having  no 
right  to  do  more  than  he  proposed,  ^.  e.,  to  fill  the  vacant  place 
of  Judas,  and  so  make  good  the  broken  number,  twelve.  And 
let  it  be  remembered,  that  even  this  he  did  not  venture  upon, 
without  being  able,  as  he  supposed,  to  quote  specific  prophecies 
bearing  directly  upon  that  particular  case. 

What  authority  is  here,  for  the  practice  of  Episcopalians 
who  make  apostles,  so  called  by  them,  in  any  number,  and  just 
when  they  please  ? 

Again ;  Matthias  was  not  understood  to  receive  a  human,  but 
a  divine  appointment.  Peter,  and  the  disciples  who  were  with 
him,  did  not  pretend  to  designate  him  to  the  apostleship,  but 
they  selected  two  whom  they  judged  to  be  suitable  persons,  and 
then,  in  the  faith  that  "  the  whole  disposing  of  the  lot  is  of  the 
Lord,"  proceeded  to  determine  6y  lot,  whether  of  the  two  God 
had  chosen.  They  understood,  what  we  affirm  and  maintain, 
that  to  be  an  apostle,  it  was  necessary  that  a  man  should  receive 
a  special  call  thereto  from  God  himself^  and  accordingly,  to  God 
they  made  their  appeal. 

Finally.  The  apostleship  of  Matthias  was  understood  by 
Peter  and  the  disciples,  to  be  derived  solely  from  the  divine 
choice,  and  not  by  communication  or  transfer  from  any  human 
being;  for,  when  "the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias,"  immediately, 
vnthout  the  imposition  of  hands,  which  was  the  sign  of  transfer, 
or  any  form  of  ordination  whatever,  "  he  was  numbered  with 
the  apostles."  He  was  understood  not  to  receive  a  communi- 
cated or  transferred  office,  but  to  be  directly  called  and  conse- 
crated by  the  head  of  the  church  himself,  just  as  the  other 
apostles  had  been  before  him. 


102  THE  CHURCH, 

Wliat  authority  is  liere,  I  ask  again,  for  such  making  of 
apostles  as  is  contended  for  by  our  Episcopal  friends,  among 
whom,  whenever  it  is  resolved  to  have  a  new  one,  the  clergy 
and  the  people  elect  him  by  their  votes,  and  the  bishops,  ahas, 
ai^ostles,  themselves  having  been  made  in  the  same  manner, 
consecrate  him  to  his  office,  by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands ! 

It  is  evident  that  this  case  of  Matthias,  even  admitting  that 
he  was  an  apostle,  does  not  affect  the  main  question  involved 
in  the  present  discussion.  By  no  ingenuity  can  it  be  made  to 
serve  as  an  example  for  such  a  succession  of  apostles  as  is 
claimed  by  our  Episcopal  brethren. 

But,  as  I  have  said,  I  deny  that  Matthias  was  an  apostle. 
In  my  sermon  on  the  office  of  a  bishop,  page  twenty-nine,  I 
said, — "  Matthias,  who,  through  the  hasty  zeal  of  Peter,  was 
chosen  by  lot,  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas,  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  was  ever  recognized  by  God,  or  known  in  the  church 
as  an  apostle;  and  that  he  never  was,  is  a  fair  presumption, 
from  the  fact,  that  the  broken  number  Christ  himself  supplied, 
by  the  miraculous  conversion  and  consecration  of  St.  Paul." 
Upon  this,  Mr.  Schuyler  remarks  as  follows, —  see  his  book, 
page  132  :  — "  What,  my  brethren,  is  the  purport  and  tendency 
of  an  assertion  like  this  ?  An  infidel  reads  it,  and  what  is  his 
conclusion  ?  Why,  he  replies,  /  will  acknowledge  the  bible,  if 
you  will  allow  me  to  receive  only  as  much  as  I  conceive  to  be 
worthy  of  inspiration,  and  reject  what  seems  trifling,  or  posi- 
tively erroneous.  If  I  can  attribute  to  hasty  zeal  what  I  think 
so,  without  being  obliged,"  &c.,  &c.  My  good  brother  can  not 
see  the  difference  between  denying  that  a  transaction  recorded 
in  the  bible  Avas  a  proper  and  authorized  transaction,  and  deny- 
ing the  truth  of  the  record.  Does  he  suppose  that  every  act 
of  man,  of  which  an  account  is  given  in  the  scriptures,  unac- 
companied with  a  specific  declaration  of  the  divine  disapproval, 
was  therefore  in  accordance  with  the  divine  will  ?  Does  he  not 
know  that  the  narrative  portions  of  the  bible  profess  to  be 
nothing   more   than   truthful  narrations?     When  the   infidel 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  103 

sliall  believe  with  me,  tliat  the  bible,  in  its  preceptive  commu- 
nications is  holy  and  just,  in  its  doctrinal  communications  true, 
and  in  its  narrative  parts  represents  every  fact  exactly  as  it 
occurred,  then,  I  think,  he  will  no  longer  be  an  infidel.  This, 
howe^'er,  would  not  satisfy  Mr.  Schuyler.  He  would  have 
the  infidel  believe,  not  only  that  the  bible  narratives  are 
true,  but  that  where  there  is  not  a  special  sentence  of  divine 
disapproval  expressed,  they  invariably  narrate  things  that  God 
approved  of.  If  my  very  sagacious  review^er  would  be  dis- 
tressed, as  I  doubt  not  he  would  be,  at  the  thought  of  making 
infidels,  I  advise  him  to  be  cautious  how  he  recommends  such 
a  rule  as  this,  to  be  applied  in  judging  of  the  scripture  narra- 
tives. The  scriptures  narrate  things  as  they  occurred,  leaving 
us,  in  general,  to  form  our  opinions  of  the  propriety  or  impro- 
priety, the  right  or  wrong  of  the  doings  which  they  record, 
just  as  we  judge  of  the  propriety  or  impropriety,  the  right  or 
wrong  of  those  doings  of  men,  of  which  w^e  are  personally 
observant  in  the  intercourse  of  life.  The  transaction  of  Mat- 
thias' ordination,  therefore,  unless  there  is  some  specific  divine 
declaration  to  show  on  its  behalf,  or  some  tacit  and  clearly 
implied  acknowledgment  of  it,  is  fairly  and  legitimately  a 
subject  of  inquiry,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
it  was  a  proper  and  authorized  transaction  or  not.  Now 
I  defy  Mr.  S.,  or  any  other  person,  to  show  either  a  specific 
divine  declaration  in  favor  of  what  Peter  and  the  other  disci- 
ples did  in  this  case,  or  any  tacit  and  implied  acknowledgment 
of  Matthias  as  an  apostle.  His  name  does  not  occur  again  in 
the  whole  New  Testament,  nor  is  there,  in  any  place,  the 
slightest  allusion  to  his  person,  or  to  the  subject  of  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  apostolical  ofiice.  The  apostles,  I  am  well  aware, 
are  spoken  of  as  twelve,  previcjus  to  the  conversion  of  Paul,  as 
in  Acts  vi :  2  —  "  Then  the  tiuelve  called  the  multitude  of  the 
disciples  unto  them,"  &c. ;  and  this  might  seem  to  make  it  clear, 
that  Matthias  must  have  been  there,  not  only  numbered  with 
the  apostles,  but  acting  with  them,  and  taking  part  fully  in  their 


104  THE  CHURCH, 

counsels.  But,  unfortunately  for  those  who  would  be  pleased 
with  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  apostles  are  also  spoken  of  as 
twelve.,  after  the  fall  of  Judas,  and  before  the  ordination  of 
Matthias.  See.  Jobn  xx:  24  —  "But  Thomas,  one  of  the 
twelve,  called  Didymus,  w^as  not  wath  them."  See  also  1  Cor. 
XV :  5  —  "And  that  he  was  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve  J* 
How  is  this  ?  The  ttvelve,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  was  the 
corporate  title  of  the  apostolic  college,  and  the  mere  use  of  the 
term  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  there  w^ere  actually,  at  any 
given  time,  twelve  persons  known  and  acting  as  apostles. 

There  is  a  place  in  the  second  chapter  of  Acts,  in  the  account 
given  of  the  transactions  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  wdiich  some 
and  among  them  Mr.  Barnes,  suppose,  does  imply  that  twelve 
persons  were  then  recognized  as  apostles,  and  of  course  that 
Matthias  was  one  of  them.  At  the  fourteenth  verse,  we  read  — 
"  But  Peter  standing  up  ivith  the  eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice," 
etc.  But  let  any  one  ask  himself  whether,  if  no  mention  had 
previously  been  made  of  Matthias,  and  the  entire  record,  in  the 
former  chapter,  of  his  ordination  were  wanting,  there  would 
seem  to  be  any  impropriety  of  expression  in  the  place  we  are 
now  looking  at.  May  not  the  passage  be  read  —  But  Peter 
standing  up  with  the  rest  of  the  eleven,  or  with  all  the  eleven^ 
just  as  easy  and  as  naturally  as  in  any  other  way  ?  On  what 
principle  can  it  be  assumed,  that  the  necessary  reading  is  —  But 
Peter  standing  up  with  the  eleven  other  apostles?  If  the  record 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Acts  were  wanting,  would  the  language 
here  suggest  a  difficulty  to  any  mind  ?  Most  assuredly  it  would 
not.  It  is  just  as  fair,  therefore,  for  me  to  say  that  my  reading 
of  this  text  is  right,  and  to  claim  it  as  proof,  that  after  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Matthias  was  wholly  set  aside,  and 
was  no  more  "  numbered  with  the  apostles,"  as  it  is  for  those  who 
differ  in  opinion  to  insist  that  the  other  reading  is  right,  and 
that  the  text  proves,  that  after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  apostleship  of  Matthias  was  recognized.  The  amount  is? 
that  the  place  can  not  be  used  for  proof,  either  way.     On  the 


ITS  MINISTRY. AND  WORSHIP.  105 

point  under  discussion  it  establishes  nothing.  I  say  again, 
therefore,  that  the  case  of  Matthias  is  fairly  open  to  examinationj 
and  Mr.  Schuyler's  horror  at  my  bold  treatment  of  this  so-called 
apostle,  is  a  mere  waste  of  sensibility. 

The  facts  upon  which  a  judgment,  in  this  case  of  Matthias, 
is  to  be  formed,  are  the  following : 

First.  The  transaction  of  his  appointment  is  unsupported 
hy  any  shadow  of  approving  testimony,  Mr.  Schuyler  him- 
self acknowledges,  page  135,  that  it  was  a  transaction  of  the 
utmost  importance,  insomuch  that,  it  "would  forever  give 
character  to  the  christian  church."  Again  he  says,  page  137,  — 
"  We  conceive  this  transaction  itself  had  the  gospel  history  here 
closed,  would  have  sufficiently  indicated  the  purpose  of  the 
great  head  of  the  church,  as  to  the  perpetuation  of  the  apos- 
tolic office."  Now  we  say  that  a  transaction  which  was  intended 
to  hold  so  high  a  place  of  authority  as  an  example,  and  to  have 
such  a  far  reaching  influence,  would  not  have  been  left  without 
some  clear  and  unequivocal  testimony  in  its  favor.  We  attach 
no  such  importance  to  it  as  Mr.  Schuyler  does,  yet  we  attach 
importance  to  it,  and  can  not  believe,  that  if  God  approved  of 
it,  he  would  have  left  it  without  some  special  evidence  of  his 
approbation.  Mr.  Schuyler  claims,  that  the  bare  record  of  it 
by  Luke,  without  a  special  sentence  of  condemnation,  is  such 
evidence.  I  say  it  is  not.  This  is  precisely  in  accordance  with 
the  general  narrative  style  of  the  scriptures.  If  what  he  claims 
in  this  case  must  be  admitted,  we  should  be  compelled  on  the 
same  principle  to  admit  as  right,  every  other  act  recorded  in  the 
bible  which  is  not  specifically  pronounced  to  be  wrong.  The 
burden  of  proof  evidently  lies  with  those  who  claim  that  the 
appointment  of  Matthias  was  proper.  It  devolves  upon  them 
to  show  a  specific  declaration, —  or  at  least,  a  clear  implication, 
out  of  the  narrative  itself,  in  favor  of  it ;  and  not  upon  us  to 
show  specific  declarations  or  implications  against  it. 

Second.  Peter  in  proposing  the  appointment  of  an  apostle  to 
supply  the  place  of  Judas,  did  not  act  under  the  inspiration 
6* 


106  THE  CHURCH, 

of  the  Holy  Ohoat^  or  upon  instructions  which  he  had  received 
from  Christ.  This  may  appear  to  be  a  bold  affirmation ;  but 
it  is  susceptible  of  tlie  amplest  and  clearest  proof.  In  the 
address  which  he  made  to  the  disciples,  he  professed  to  give  his 
authority  for  the  measure  which  he  recommended.  If  he  had 
had  a  command  from  Christ,  or  if  he  had  been  acting  under 
the  instant  dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  would  he  not  have  said 
so?  Is  it  credible  that  he  would  have  passed  over,  in  utter 
silence,  the  very  authority,  upon  which  his  proposal  was  based, 
and  contented  liimself  with  simply  quoting  certain  passages  from 
the  Psalms  ?  Read  his  speech. —  "  Men  and  brethren,  this  scrip- 
ture must  needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas,  which  was 
guide  to  them  that  took  Jesus.  For  he  was  numbered  with  us, 
and  had  obtained  part  of  this  ministry.  Now  this  man  pur- 
chased a  field  with  the  reward  of  iniquity ;  and  falling  head- 
long, he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed 
out;  and  it  was  known  unto  all  the  dwellers  at  Jerusalem; 
insomuch  as  that  field  is  called  in  their  proper  tong-ue,  Acel- 
dama, that  is  to  say.  The  field  of  blood ;  for  it  is  written  in  the 
book  of  Psalms,  Let  his  habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no  man 
dwell  therein;  and,  his  bishopric  [L  e.  charge  or  office)  let 
another  take.  Wherefore,  of  these  men,  which  have  companied 
with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John  unto  that  same 
day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to  be 
a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection."  Now  I  do  not  ask. 
Where  is  the  proof  that  the  measure  proposed  was  by  command 
of  Christ,  or  by  the  instant  dictation  of  the  spirit  ?  but  I  say  — 
See  the  proof  that  it  was  not  by  either  of  these  authorities. 
Remember,  Peter  was  professedly  giving  his  authority^  and  with 
no  intimation  of  a  command  from  Christ,  or  of  any  special  direc- 
tion from  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  simply  quoted  two  texts  out  of 
the  Pealms.  No  proof  could  be  more  conclusive  that  he 
was  following  his  own  judgment  merely,  in  the  exposition  of 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  107 

scripture  texts  which  he  supposed  had  reference  to  the  case 
before  him,  and  authorized  the  action  which  he  contemplated. 
Yet  Mr.  Schuyler,  and  all  other  writers  of  his  school,  insist 
upon  it,  that  Peter  acted  both  by  command  of  Christ  and 
by  inspiration. 

Third.  Admitting  that  the  texts  quoted  by  Peter  from  the 
Psalms,  had  a  special  reference  to  the  case  of  Judas,  and  the 
filling  of  his  place  by  another,  —  although  we  confess  we  see  no 
special  reference,  particularly  in  the  first  of  them  —  it  cannot 
be  made  out  from  them  that  the  business  of  filing  that  place 
by  the  appointment  of  another^  was  committed  to  the  apostles. 
The  fact  to  be  considered  is,  that  David  merely  aflfirms  that  the 
apostate  should  be  destroyed,  and  that  another  should  take  his 
place,  without  saying  a  word  to  authorize  any  human  beings  to 
interest  themselves  in  selecting  the  person  by  whom  his  office 
should  be  taken.  Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  we  undervalue 
the  authority  of  scripture  texts,  or  that  we  suppose  there  can  be 
any  higher  authority  than  a  plain  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  found 
in  the  written  volume  of  the  scriptures.  What  we  afiirm,  is,  that 
the  texts  quoted  by  Peter,  whatever  they  may  have  meant  in 
regard  to  Judas  and  his  place  in  the  apostolic  college,  did  not 
authorize  him,  i.  e.  Peter,  and  his  fellow  disciples,  to  do  what 
they  did  in  the  premises.  It  is  a  mere  assumption  that  Peter 
was  right  in  his  action  merely  because  he  was  able  to  quote 
those  passages  from  David.  In  connection  with  all  the  evi- 
dence there  is  that  the  number  of  apostles  was  not  to  exceed 
tivelve,  let  the  fact  be  borne  in  mind  here,  that  Christ  himself 
soon  answered  all  that  was  contained  in  those  proj)hetic  decla- 
rations of  the  Psalmist,  by  the  undoubted  appointment,  to  the 
apostleship,  of  Saul.  Let  the  difliculties  also  be  considered,  in 
which  the  admission  of  Matthias'  true  apostleship  involves  the 
matter  of  the  twelve  thrones,  and  the  twelve  names  in  the 
foundations  of  the  holy  city. 

Fourth.   This  transaction  of  the  appointment  of  Matthias 
was  previous  to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  ivhich  the 


108  THE  CHURCH, 

apostles  were  to  receive  power  to  engage  in  their  peculiar 
work.  This  is  the  great  fact  upon  which  we  rely  for  the 
settlement  of  the  present  question.  Other  considerations  which 
have  been  referred  to,  have  weight,  and  go  far  to  decide  a  moral 
certainty,  that  the  act  of  Peter  in  this  case  was  ill-advised  and 
unauthorized,  but  the  one  now  presented  we  hold  to  be  final 
and  conclusive.  Mr.  Schuyler  has  some  inklings  of  the  trouble 
to  be  apprehended  from  this  quarter,  and  endeavors,  on  page 
138  of  his  book,  to  show  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  been  re- 
ceived^ quoting  John  xx :  22  —  "  And  he  breathed  on  them  and 
said,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  Is  my  brother  quite  sure 
that  his  interpretation  of  this  text  is  right  ?  Bloomfield,  whose 
authority  as  a  commentator,  is  of  the  highest  kind  among  Epis- 
copalians, says,  on  this  passage,  in  his  Digest, "  When  he  is  said 
to  have  breathed  on  them,  (enephusese,)  we  are  to  understand 
it  as  a  symbolical  action,  by  which  he  was  pleased  to  introduce 
and  illustrate  the  promise  before  made:  for  labete  pneuma 
agion,  (receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,)  can  only  be  understood  as 
?!,  present  promise  of  2^  future  benefit  which  should  very  shortly 
be  communicated :  namely,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  con- 
sidering this  as  no  other  than  a  symbolical  action,  all  the  best 
commentators  are  agreed^''  Rosenmueller  says,  —  "  Labete, — 
Imperativus  pro  Futuro ;  significanter,  ut  solent  prophetae,  cer- 
tissimum  et  tamquam  praesentem  praedictorum  eventum  pro- 
mittentes.  Itaque  illis  verbis  indicatur,  hunc  afflatum  ipsis  pro 
symbolo  esse,  unde  omen  capere  debeant  de  conferendis  in  ipsos 
propediem  Spiritus  S.  dotibus,  quas  morti  proximus  iis  promi- 
serat,  ch.  xvi."  This  is  precisely  the  idea  of  Bloomfield.  Mr. 
Barnes,  on  the  same  passage,  says,  ^'■'' Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghosts  This  was  given  them  as  a  certain  sign,  or  pledge, 
that  they  should  be  endowed  with  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  —  Comp.  Acts  i :  4,  ch.  ii."  I  might  quote  any  number 
of  commentators  of  the  first  class,  who  all  give  the  same  expo- 
sition. We  say,  therefore,  on  tlie  best  human  authority,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  given  to  the  disciples  at  this  time,  but 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  V/ORSHIP.  109 

a  significant  symbol  was  afforded  them  of  tlie  future  fulfillment 
of  the  promise  which  they  had  before  received.  What  was  the 
promise  which  they  had  before  received  ?  See  John  xvi :  7  — 
"  Nevertheless,  I  tell  you  the  truth :  it  is  expedient  for  you  that 
I  go  away:  for,  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come 
unto  you."  The  promise  was,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  come 
to  be  with  them,  after  he,  L  e,  Christ  was  gone  away  from* 
earth  to  heaven,  and  they  were  distinctly  assured  that  this  pro- 
mise could  not  be  fulfilled  sooner.  — '"''  If  I  go  not  away,  the 
Comforter  loill  not  come  unto  youV  If  Mr.  Schuyler  is  dis- 
posed to  set  his  opinion  against  that  of  Bloomfield  and  "all  the 
best  commentators,"  I  trust,  that  he  will  at  least  be  satisfied 
with  the  authority  of  Christ.  I  am  persuaded  he  never  exam- 
ined this  text  critically.  I  doubt  if  his  attention  was  ever,  in 
any  measure,  directed  to  it.  Still,  even  if  we  were  inclined  to 
indulge  him  in  the  use  which  he  makes  of  it,  and  to  admit 
(which  we  by  no  means  do)  that  the  apostles  had  received  a 
measure  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  aflSrm,  nevertheless,  that  they 
had  not  received  the  special  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with 
POWER  to  enter  on  the  worTc  of  their  ministry ;  for  which^  when 
our  Lord  ascended^  he  commanded  them  to  wait.  See  Luke 
xxiv:  49  —  "And  behold  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you ;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  until  ye  be 
endued  with  power  from  on  high."  See  also  Acts  i :  4,  5  — 
"  And  being  assembled  with  them,  commanded  them  that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of 
the  Father,  which,  saitli  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me.  For  John 
truly  baptized  with  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence."  Also,  the  8th  Aerse  — 
"  But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you ;  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth."  Will  any  one  say,  in  the  face  of  these  texts, 
that  at  the  time  of  the  transaction  now  being  considered,  the 
apostles  had  received  that  ^^  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost^''  which 


110  THE  CHURCH, 

was  to  quality  them  for  their  ministry  ?  What  authority  had 
they  then,  to  engage  in  the  highest  of  all  ministerial  acts,  — 
the  appointment  of  a  minister  ?  The  apostles  understood  that 
the  command  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until  they  should  receive 
the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  a  command  not  to  enter 
upon  the  active  labors  of  their  ministry  until  then ;  for  it  was 
with  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  without  it,  that 
they  were  to  receive  i^ower^  by  which  we  must  understand 
either  authoritij  to  discharge  the  functions  of  their  office,  or  the 
grace  by  which  they  were  to  be  qualified  for  the  discharge  of 
them.  That  they  so  understood  it  is  evident,  from  the  fact, 
that  with  the  solitary  exception  of  the  transaction  now  being 
considered,  they  did  abstain  from  all  ministerial  acts,  until  the 
Spirit  was  poured  out.  When  our  Lord,  having  given  them 
the  charge  recited  above,  had  been  "  taken  up,"  it  is  said,  "  Then 
returned  they  unto  Jerusalem  from  the  Mount  called  Oh  vet;" 
and  from  this  time  up  to  the  very  day  of  Pentecost  when  the 
Spirit  came,  "  They  continued  with  one  accord  in  prayer  and 
supplication,  with  the  women,  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
and  with  his  brethren,"  and  they  did  nothing  else,  save  this  one 
act  respecting  Matthias. 

Now,  what'  was  that  ^^poiver "  which  the  apostles  were  to 
receive  from  -on  high,  with  the  "  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  " 
I  have  suggested  above,  the  two  only  answers  which  the 
question  admits  of.  It  was  either,  first,  authority  to  enter  on 
their  ministerial  work,  under  which  supposition  they  had  no 
right  to  do  what  they  did ;  or,  secondly,  it  was  grace  to  qualify 
them  for  their  ministerial  work,  under  which  supposition  they 
were  iiicomi^etent  to  engage  in  it  aright.  One  or  the  other  of 
these  answers  must  be  the  right  one,  and  either  of  them  is  fatal 
to  the  apostleship  of  Matthias. 

It  will  avail  nothing,  to  say  that  the  apostles  had  fully 
received  their  commission,  previous  to  Christ's  ascension.  It 
is  not  an  unheard  of  or  strange  thing,  for  a  commission  to  be 
fully  issued,  and   put  into  the  hands  of   the   commissioned 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  Ill 

person,  days  and  weeks  before  it  is  to  take  effect,  or  before  the 
person  so  commissioned  is  to  enter  upon  the  duties  to  which  he 
is  appointed ;  and  precisely  so  it  was  in  the  case  of  the  apostles. 
Christ  commissioned  them,  and  specified  the  future  time  at 
which  they  were  to  begin  their  work ;  or  rather,  he  indicated  to 
them  a  sign  by  which  they  should  know  when  the  time  was 
come.  Read  the  account  of  their  commission  in  Luke  xxiv, 
ending  with  the  words  already  quoted  —  "  and  behold  I  send 
the  promise  of  my  father  upon  you ;  hut  tarry  ye  in  Jerusalem 
until  ye  he  endued  with   power  from  on  highr 

The  apostles  either  engaged  in  the  transaction  of  Matthias' 
ordination  by  virtue  of  authority  which  they  supposed  was 
conferred  on  them  by  the  commission  which  they  had  received 
from  Christ,  or  they  engaged  in  it  as  private  individuals.  If 
they  did  it  as  private  individuals,  no  one  will  pretend  that  their 
action  in  the  premises  was  justifiable  or  valid.  If  they  did  it 
under  their  commission,  acting  as  ministers  in  the  church, 
it  is  evident  that  their  action  was  unauthorized  and  disor- 
derly, and  therefore,  of  no  eftect;  for  the  time  had  not  yet 
come  for  which  they  had  been  commanded  to  wait^  and  they 
were  without  the  power  which  it  had  been  promised  they 
should  receive. 

Did  not  Luke  mean  to  intimate  the  impropriety  of  this 
transaction,  when  he  said,  in  proceeding  to  gwQ  his  account  of 
it,  —  "  In  those  days  Peter  stood  up  in  the  midst  of  the  disci- 
ples," &c.,  &c.  ?  In  what  days  ?  Why,  in  those  days  which 
intervened  between  the  ascension  of  Christ,  and  the  bestow- 
ment  on  the  apostles  of  the  Father's  promise,  with  poiver  to 
engage  in  their  ministry :  in  those  days  during  which  they  had 
heen  expressly  commanded  to  wait,  and  to  perform  no  minis- 
terial acts.  I  can  not  avoid  thinking  that  there  is  force  in 
the  expression  of  Luke  —  ''In  those  days;''  and  that  he 
intended  by  it  far  more  than  is  commonly  supposed. 

Finally.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  nothing  is  expressed  con- 
trary to  our  argument,  in  the  words  with  which  Luke  ends  his 


112  THE  CHURCH, 

account  —  "  And  the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias ;  and  he  was  num- 
bered with  the  eleven  apostles^  This  is  nothing  more  than 
the  natural  continuation  and  ending  of  the  narrative.  Of 
course,  Peter  and  the  rest  supposed,  when  this  transaction  was 
concluded,  that  Matthias  was  a  true  apostle,  and  they  counted 
him  accordingly.  By  no  rules  of  interpretation  can  this  be 
considered  as  an  affirmation  that  Matthias  ivas  an  apostle,  or 
that  he  was  permanently  regarded  as  one.  He  was  "  numbered 
with  the  eleven"  then^  at  that  time,  when  the  unauthorized 
transaction  was  finished,  which,  to  those  who  took  part  in  it, 
seemed  to  invest  him  with  apostolic  grace. 

We  simply  maintain  that  Peter,  and  those  who  acted  with 
him  in  the  case  of  Matthias,  misjudged;  and  that,  intending  to 
do  a  right  and  proper  thing,  they  did  a  wrong  thing,  and  a 
very  foolish  thing.  We  say  this,  not  having  the  fear  of  Mr. 
Schuyler,  or  of  Dr.  Shelton,  before  our  eyes,  and  utterly  regard- 
less of  the  blasts  of  pious  indignation  that  will  probably  blow 
upon  us  from  that  quarter  for  our  infidelity.  The  question  is, 
When  did  Peter  and  the  rest  receive  that  inspiration  and  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  were  intended  to  qualify  them  for 
their  work,  by  giving  them  clear  and  correct  views  of  the 
gospel,  and  of  the  nature,  objects,  and  duties  of  their  own 
mission  ?  From  what  point  of  time  are  we  to  regard  them  as 
the  accredited  ministers  of  Christ,  the  authoritative  agents  of 
his  will,  and  expounders  of  his  religion  ?  That  they  were  not 
so  pre\dous  to  Christ's  death,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they 
were  continually,  during  all  that  period,  falling  into  the  grossest 
mistakes,  both  of  opinion  and  conduct,  in  relation  to  all  sorts 
of  subjects.  And  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion  and  resurrection, 
when  they  acknowledged  their  disappointment,  having  supposed 
that  it  was  he  that  should  ha^^e  restored  the  kingdom  to  Israel, 
and  some  of  them  even  could  not  easily  be  persuaded  that  he 
was  risen,  according  to  his  word ;  so  late  as  this,  it  is  undeniable 
that  they  were  without  any  of  those  qualifications  which  were 
necessary  to  give  them  authority,  or  to  exalt  them  in  any  respect 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  113 

above  other  good  and  honest  men,  if  such  might  have  been, 
who  had  enjoyed  similar  advantages.  Would  there  be  impiety 
in  saying,  that  the  conduct  of  Peter  and  his  companions  was 
improper  and  foolish,  at  any  time  previous  to  their  Lord's  death, 
or  at  the  time  of  it,  or  during  the  days  which  immediately 
followed  ?  Would  there  be  impiety  in  expressing  the  opinion 
that  they  sometimes  acted  wickedly?  Now,  as  I  have  said,  the 
question  is.  When  did  they  acquire  that  authority,  which  event- 
ually they  had,  as  ministers  and  ambassadors  for  Christ  ?  After 
what  point  of  time  do  their  acts  and  sayings  become  authori- 
tative and  binding  on  the  church  ?  I  answer,  and  who  will 
venture  to  dispute  me,  Their  authority  began  when  they  received 
"  the  promise  of  the  father  ivith  power,"  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. They  were  "  endued  with  power  from  on  high^''  then  ; 
and  just  as  really  as  we  are  bound  by  their  teachings  and 
doings  at  any  subsequent  time,  just  so  really  may  we,  if  we 
choose,  question  and  deny  the  propriety  of  what  they  said  and 
did  at  any  time  before. 

We  have  attributed  Peter's  conduct  in  the  case  of  Matthias 
to  "  hasty  zeal." — We  do  so  still.  It  was  just  like  him  to  tire 
of  the  inaction  of  those  days  which  preceded  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, and  to  bethink  himself  of  something  by  which  he  might 
anticipate  events,  and  hurry  forward  the  great  enterprise  with 
which  his  soul  was  beginning  to  be  fired.  The  mistake  which 
he  made  in  this  instance  was  characteristic  of  the  man. 

We  here  dismiss  the  case  of  Matthias,  reminding  the  reader 
again,  that  whatever  he  may  think  of  the  question  of  this  per- 
son's apostleship,  it  is  a  case  which  can  have  no  bearing  on  the 
present  main  controversy.  It  is  simply  ridiculous  for  Mr. 
Schuyler  to  represent  his  assumed  appointment  to  the  apostolic 
office  as  a  transaction  "  that  would  forever  give  character  to  the 
christian  church,"  and  to  say,  "  We  conceive  this  transaction 
itself,  had  the  gospel  history  here  closed,  would  have  suflBciently 
indicated  the  purpose  of  the  great  head  of  the  church,  as  to 
the  perpetuation  of  the  apostolic  office."     Admitting,  what  we 


114  THE  CHURCH, 

have  shown  was  not  true,  that  he  was  a  genuine  apostle,  there 
is  no  ground  whatever,  on  which  his  apjDointment  can  be  made 
to  appear  in  the  light  of  a  precedent;  for  he  was  appointed  to 
fill  a  vacancy  in  the  duodecimate,  and  he  did  not  receive  the 
office  by  transfer,  or  communication,  but  by  an  immediate 
divine  designation.  We  ourselves  will  cheeerfully  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  all  apostles,  we  care  not  wdiat  the  number  of 
them  may  be,  who  can  be  shown  to  have  received  their  office  in 
the  way  that  it  is  pretended  Matthias  received  his.  Episcopa- 
lians gain  nothing,  not  even  for  their  principle  of  succession, 
until  they  can  show  that  an  apostle  was  appointed,  not  to  fill  a 
place  in  the  original  duodecimate,  but  to  fill  a  new  place^  and 
that  he  received  his  authority  from  those  ivho  were  already 
apostles,  by  virtue  of  authority  vested  in  them. 


THE    TERM   "APOSTLE"    APPLIED    IN   THE    NEW 

TESTAMENT   TO    OTHERS   BESIDES 

THE  TWELVE. 

An  argument  to  show  that  the  apostleship  was  actually 
transferred,  is  sometimes  sought  to  be  made  out  of  the  fact> 
that  in  the  New  Testament,  the  term  "  apostle,"  is  actually 
applied  to  others,  besides  the  twelve  wdiom  all  unite  in  recogniz- 
ing as  invested  truly  with  that  office.  Thus,  Acts  xiv:  14, 
Barnabas  is  classed  with  Paul  under  the  same  general  designa- 
tion — "  Which,  when  the  apostles,  Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of," 
&c.,  &c.  The  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  is  called 
"  the  epistle  of  Paul,"  is,  in  reality,  as  the  salutation  shows,  the 
epistle  of  Paul,  and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  who,  in  chapter 
ii:  6,  style  themselves  in  common,  "the  apostles  of  Christ." 
In  Phihppians  ii :  25,  Paul  says, — "  Yet  I  supposed  it  necessary 
to  send  unto  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in 
labor,  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  messenger,  («'.  e.  apostle,  for 
so  the  Greek  reads,)  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants."     So 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  115 

also,  in  2  Cor.  viii:  23,  lie  writes, — "Whether  any  do  inquire 
of  Titus,  he  is  my  partner  and  fellow-helper,  concerning  you ; 
or  our  brethren  be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  {apos- 
tles) of  the  churches,  and  the  glory  of  Christ."  And  again, 
Rom.  xvi :  7, — "  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen, 
and  my  fellow  piisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles." 

The  argument,  or  rather  ap'peal^  for  it  is  not  an  argument, 
founded  upon  this  occasional  use  of  the  term  "apostle,"  has 
great  weight  with  a  certain  class  of  minds.  It  looks  amazingly 
like  a  settlement  of  the  question  in  debate,  to  find  Barnabas, 
and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  and  Epaphroditus,  and  Androni- 
cus, and  Junia  actually  called  apostles,  in  the  inspired  record. 
When  an  Episcopal  minister,  discussing  this  subject  before  his 
congregation,  says, — "And  now  brethren,  what  more  can  we 
desire,  when  we  find  it  here  especially  recorded,  that  Barnabas, 
and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  and  Epaphroditus,  and  others 
were  "  apostles  ? "  there  is  no  doubt  that  nine-tenths  of  those 
who  hear  him  are  ready  to  say, — "  Sure  enough ;  what  more 
can  we  desire  ?  That  settles  it."  But  all  who  understand  this 
subject,  know  that  it  does  not  settle  it ;  and  that  so  far  from 
settling  it,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

The  term  "  apostle,^''  from  the  Greek  word  apostolos^  prima- 
rily signifies  one  sent,  a  messenger,  and  this  is  always  its  signi- 
fication, except  in  those  instances  where  it  is  specifically  used  as 
the  name  of  an  oflfice ;  and  even  in  those  instances,  it  retains  jts 
primary  sense,  as  descriptive  of  the  nature  of  the  oflice  which 
it  names.  In  the  case  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  our  Lord,  it  is 
the  name  of  their  oflSce,  descriptive  of  its  general  nature ;  as 
they  were  officially,  and  in  distinction  from  all  others,  his  mes- 
sengers, sent  by  him,  as  he  himself  was  sent  of  God.  Now, 
it  is  evidently  leaping  far  to  a  conclusion,  to  set  it  down  as  a 
determined  fact,  that  every  person  to  whom  the  term  "apostle" 
is  applied  in  the  New  Testament,  was  therefore,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  one  of  our  Lord's  apostles,  in  the  high  and  official 
sense  of  that  word.     We  nuist  always  look,  where  this  term 


116  THE  CHURCH, 

occurs,  to  see  if  there  was  not  some  special  reason  for  its  being 
applied  as  we  find  it,  in  some  special  mission  upon  whicli  the 
person  to  whom  the  title  is  given  was  employed.  We  must 
inquire  whether  he  was  not,  or  had  not  been  in  connection  with 
the  application  of  this  term  to  him,  a  special  messenger  of 
some  body,  or  sent  upon  some  specific  errand,  or  mission,  in 
virtue  of  which  the  term  "  apostolos,"  is  applied  to  him. 

The  principle  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  name  "  apostle," 
for  which  I  am  contending,  is  distinctly  stated  by  Dr.  Onder- 
donk,  in  his  tract,  "Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,"  page 
fourteen:  "Another  irregularity  of  the  same  kind  occurs  in 
regard  to  the  word  '  elder.'  It  is  sometimes  used  for  a  minister 
or  clergyman  of  any  grade,  higher,  middle,  or  lower :  but  it 
more  strictly  signifies  a  presbyter.  Many  words  have  both  a 
loose  and  a  specific  meaning.  The  word  '  angel '  is  often  loosely 
applied ;  but  distinctively  it  means  certain  created  spirits.  The 
word  '  God '  is  applied  to  angels,  and  idols,  and  human  person- 
ages or  magistrates;  but  distinctively  it  means  the  Supreme 
Being.  The  word  'deacon'  means  an  ordinary  servant,  a 
servant  of  God  in  secular  affairs,  and  any  minister  of  Christ; 
but  a  christian  minister  of  the  lower  grade  is  its  specific  mean- 
ing. So,  w^ith  the  word  'elder;'  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  the 
clergy  of  any  gi-ade,  or  gi-ades ;  but  its  appropriate  application 
is  to  ministers  of  the  second  or  middle  order."  Dr.  0.  might 
have  gone  on  to  say.  So  also,  the  word  "  apostle  "  is  applied 
loosely  to  messengers  of  any  kind,  to  persons  sent  upon  any 
particular  mission ;  but  distinctively  it  belongs  to  the  twelve 
whom  our  Saviour  commissioned  to  complete  what  he  had  left 
unfinished  of  the  work  of  founding  and  settling  his  church. 

Let  us  now  apply  the  rule  here  stated,  to  the  cases  that  have 
been  cited,  in  which  the  term  "  apostle "  is  applied  to  others 
besides  the  twelve  acknowledged  apostles  of  our  Lord. 

First.  Take  the  case  in  Acts  xiv :  14,  —  "  Which  when  the 
apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of,"  <fec.  The  question  is, 
were  Barnabas  and  Paul  employed  at  this  time  on  any  special 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  117 

mission,  which  may  account  for  this  manner  of  speaking  of 
them,  independently  of  supposing  that  Barnabas  was  an  apostle 
in  the  high  and  official  sense  of  that  word  ?  The  question  is 
answered  by  referring  back  to  the  first  four  verses  of  the  thir- 
teenth chapter  —  "  Now  there  were  in  the  church  that  was  at 
Antioch  certain  prophets  and  teachers ;  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon, 
that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen, 
which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul. 
As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
said.  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto 
1  have  called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted,  and  prayed, 
and  laid  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away.  So  they,  being 
sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  departed  into  Seleucia ;  and  they 
sailed  to  Cyprus." 

Barnabas  and  Paul,  therefore,  at  the  time  when  they  are  thus 
called  apostles^  were  engaged  together  in  a  special  missionary 
service.  They  had  been  sent  together  to  do  a  special  work. 
One  was  an  apostle  in  the  high  and  distinctive  sense  of  that 
word,  but  in  this  service  both  of  them  were  apostoloi,  that  is, 
messengers  or  missionaries.  The  case  of  Barnabas,  therefore, 
is  clearly  disposed  of. 

The  next  case,  is  that  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
addressed  by  Paul  and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  who,  in  the 
sixth  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  are  styled  in  common, 
"  apostles  of  Christ."  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  this  case  that  ihe 
three  together  are  not  only  styled  apostles,  but,  as  if  to  make 
it  stronger,  "  apostles  of  ChristP  Now,  was  there  any  reason 
for  this,  if  we  reject  the  idea  that  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  were 
really  apostles  in  the  high  and  official  sense  ?  When  they  went 
to  Thessalonica,  were  they  in  any  special  and  pecuhar  manner 
employed  upon  an  errand  for  Christ,  as  his  missionaries  or 
messengers  ?  The  following  quotation  from  Macknight's  pre- 
face to  this  epistle,  affords  a  sufficient  answer:  "From  the 
history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles  it  appears,  that  St.  Paul 
first  passed  into  Europe  to  preach  the  gospel,  after  he  had 


118  THE  CHURCH, 

delivered  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xvi :  4) 
to  the  churches  in  the  lesser  Asia,  whereby  the  Gentiles  were 
declared  free  from  obeying  the  law  of  Moses,  as  a  term  of 
salvation.  In  the  course  of  that  journey,  Paul  having  come 
to  Troas,  there  appeared  to  him,  in  the  night,  a  vision  of  a  man 
in  the  habit  of  a  Macedonian,  praying  them  to  come  over  into 
Macedonia,  and  help  them.  In  obedience  to  that  call,  which 
they  hiew  to  he  from  Christy  the  apostle,  with  his  assistants, 
Silas  (which  is  the  same  as  Silvanus)  and  Timothy,  went  first 
to  Philippi,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  a  very  flourishing 
church  there ;  after  that,  they  went  to  Thessalonica,  a  great  sea- 
port town  of  Macedonia,"  &c.  This  is  enough.  Paul,  and 
Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  were  sent  by  Christ  into  Macedonia, 
on  a  special  mission.  One  was  an  apostle  in  the  high  official 
and  distinctive  sense  of  the  word ;  all  were  Christ's  apostoloi, 
that  is,  messengers  or  missionaries. 

It  is  contended  by  some  that,  in  the  place  referred  to,  the 
expression  "  apostles  of  Christ "  is  not  used  with  reference  to 
Silas  and  Timothy ;  but  that  Paul,  who  evidently  was  the  sole 
author  of  the  epistle,  employed  the  plural  form,  according  to  a 
common  practice  with  him,  in  speaking  simply  of  himself. 
The  criticism  is  not  necessary,  nor  do  I  think  it  can  be  sus- 
tained. Paul  might  speak  of  himself  in  the  plural,  as  "  we  " 
and  "W5,"  but  I  do  not  think  he  would  call  himself  "the 
apostles  of  Christ." 

Let  the  instance  in  1  Tliess.  ii :  6,  where  the  term ,"  apostle  " 
is  so  manifestly  used  in  the  sense  of  messenger,  or  missionary 
be  compared  with  Col.  i:  1,  where  it  is  as  manifestly  used  with 
its  specific  meaning,  as  the  name  of  an  office,  —  '-'■Paul  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christy  hy  the  loill  of  God,,  and  Timotheus 
our  brother r  Timothy  is  here  very  carefully  set  aside,  and 
the  term  "  apostle "  is  taken  by  Paul  exclusively  to  himself. 
Precisely  the  same  thing  may  be  seen  again  in  2  Cor.  i :  1. 

The  third  case  is  in  Philippians  ii:  25  —  "Yet  I  supposed 
it  necessary  to  send  unto  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  119 

companion  in  labor,  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  messenger 
(i.  e.,  apostle),  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants."  In  what 
sense  was  Epaphroditus  the  apostle  of  the  Philippians  ? 
Episcopalians  say,  that  he  was  their  bishop ;  that  is,  that  he  was 
over  them  in  the  true  office  of  an  apostle.  So  Blaekwall,  an 
eminent  Episcopal  writer,  affirms,  in  commenting  on  this  pas- 
sage !  The  whole  secret  is  disclosed  in  the  fourth  chapter :  Paul 
tells  the  Philippians,  that  they  alone  of  all  the  churches,  since 
the  time  of  his  leaving  Macedonia,  had  contributed  to  his  support. 
At  the  sixteeeth  verse,  and  onward,  he  writes  as  follows :  "  For 
even  in  Thessalonica,  ye  sent  once  and  again  unto  my  necessity. 
Not  because  I  desire  a  gift ;  but  I  desire  fruit  that  may  abound 
to  your  account.  But  I  have  all  things,  and  abound ;  I  am 
full,  having  received  of  Epaphroditus  the  things  ivhich  were 
sent  from  your  Epaphroditus,  then,  had  been  sent  to  Paul 
by  the  Philippians  with  gifts  for  his  support.  He  was  their 
messenger^  by  whom  they  communicated  with  their  absent 
friend.  So  slight  a  circumstance  does  it  take  to  make  a  succes- 
sor to  the  apostles.  Macknight  says  —  preface  to  Philip- 
pians, section  11  —  "  The  brethren  at  Philippi  having  heard  of 
their  spiritual  father's  imprisonment  at  Rome,  sent  Epaph- 
roditus, one  of  their  most  esteemed  pastors,  to  that  city,  to 
comfort  him  by  making  known  to  him  their  love,  and  by 
supplying  him  with  money,  that  he  might  want  nothing 
necessary  to  render  his  confinement  easy."  For  proof,  he 
refers  to  chapter  iv:  18. 

Take  again,  the  case  in  2  Cor.  viii :  23  —  "  Whether  they  do 
inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my  partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning 
you :  or  our  brethren  be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers 
(apostles)  of  the  churches,  and  the  glory  of  Christ."  Titus  is 
not  one  of  those  who  are  here  called  apostles.  The  term  is 
applied  exclusively  to  certain  other  persons,  whom  Paul  styles 
"  our  brethren."  As  the  shortest  method  of  disposing  of  this, 
I  give  Macknight's  paraphrase  of  the  latter  portion  of  the 
text:    "  Or   if  they  inquire    concerning   our   brethren    who 


120  THE  CHURCH, 

accompany  Titus,  tliey  are  persons  se^it  by  the  churches  to 
go  with  me  to  Jerusalem,  (verse  nineteen,)  and  by  that  servi.ee 
they  bring  glory  to  Christ." 

The  last  case  to  be  noticed,  is  that  in  Rom.  x\i :  V,  w^here 
Andronicus  and  Junia  are  said  to  be  "o/  note  among  the 
ajpostlesr  This,  I  have  only  to  say,  is  wholly  perverted,  if  it 
is  supposed  to  mean  that  Andronicus  and  Junia  were  noted 
or  distinguished  apostles.  It  means  simply  that  they  were 
persons  in  high  esteem  with  the  apostles,  or  well  known  to  them. 
Koppe  renders  the  place  —  "Magna  eorum  fama  est  apud 
apostolos  "  —  great  is  their  reputation  with  the  apostles.  So 
Flatt,  and  Bloomfield,  and  Rosenmueller,  and  indeed,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  every  commentator  that  I  have  consulted. 

There  is  nothing,  therefore,  to  be  made  for  episcopacy*  from 
this  fact,  respecting  the  use  of  the  term  "apostle,"  in  its 
application  to  others  besides  the  twelve. 


WERE    BARNABAS,  SILAS,  TIMOTHY,  TITUS,  AN- 
DRONICUS, JUNIA,  AND  EPAPHRODITUS 
APOSTLES  ? 

These  are  chiefly  the  persons,  who,  it  is  pretended  were  first 
appointed  in  the  apostolic  succesion.  Now,  the  question  is, 
Were  they  aiiostles?  It  is  claimed  that  they  were.  We  ask 
for  the  evidences  of  it.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  of  course, 
with  those  who  maintain  the  affirmative,  and  we  ask  for  the 
proof.  Is  there  any  record  of  their  call  and  ordination  as 
apostles  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind.  Is  the  term  "  apostle,"  in  its 
high  official  and  distinctive  sense,  in  one  solitary  instance  applied 
to  either  of  them  ?  Not  once.  Are  they  all,  or  any  of  them, 
ever  classed  with  the  apostles,  as  such,  in  distinction  from  others 
in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  sameness  of  official  dignity  and 
station  ?  Never.  Is  it  in  proof  that  they  ever  pretended  to  be 
apostles  ?     Not  at  all.     It  is  needless  of  course  to  ask,  whether 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  121 

they  were  competent  to  do  the  work,  which  we  have  shown  to 
be  the  proper  and  pecuHar  work  of  apostles,  as  also,  whether 
in  any  other  respect  they  answer  the  description  necessary  to 
establish  their  claims  to  the  high  dignity  which  is  asserted  for 
them  ?     Not  a  particle  of  that  proof  is  furnished,  which  every 
reasonable  mind  must"  feel  to  be  indispensable  in  such  a  case. 
The  fact,  which  is  the  very  fact  to  be  proved, —  and  to  be  proved 
by  such  evidence  as  shall  set  it  upon  high  and  undisputed 
ground, —  of   a  communication   or  transfer  of  the   apostolic 
grace,  is  not  even  attempted  to  be  estabhshed ;  but  we  are  asked 
to  believe  that  these  persons  were  apostles,  on  the  simple  ground 
that  they  exercised  a  certain  degree  of  authority  in  the  church, 
and  particularly  that  they  ordained  ministers.     In  regard  to  all 
of  them,  not  even  this  degree  of  proof  is  furnished.     What,  for 
example,  are  the  claims  of  Epaphroditus  ?     We  have  examined 
already  the  whole  scripture  proof  in  his  case.     The  Philippians 
had  sent  him  to  Paul,  at  Rome,  with  money  for  his  support,  and 
Paul  in  writing  back  his  thanks,  calls  him  "  your  apostle,"  i.  e. 
your  messenger.     And  Theodoret  who  lived  not  far  from  four 
hundred  years  later,  when  episcopal  sentiments  had  begun  exten- 
sively to  prevail  in  the  church,  falling  into  the  same  error  with 
modern  episcopalians,  says,  "  Epaphroditus  was  the  apostle  of 
the  Philippians,  because  he  was  entrusted  with  the  episcopal 
government,  as  being  their  bishop.    Now  we  know  why  Epaph- 
roditus was  called  the  apostle  of  the  Philippians,  and  we  can 
Smile  at  poor  Theodoret's  blunder.     What  are  the  grounds  of 
claim  for  Andronicus  and  Junia  ?     We  have  seen  already  the 
only  mention  of  these  persons  that  is  contained  in  the  New 
Testament.     They  were  of  note  among  the  apostles.     That  is, 
they  were  well  known  and  highly  esteemed  by  the  apostles.   As 
for  Barnabas  and  Silas,  the  whole  pretension  of  their  apostleship 
rests  upon  the  simple  fact  that  they  traveled  with  Paul,  and 
assisted  him  in  his  missionary  labors. 

Our  episcopal  friends  make  their  stand  upon  the  names  of 
Timothy  and  Titus.     These  are  their  strong  cases,  upon  which, 
7 


122  THE  CHURCH, 

no  doubt,  they  are  willing  to  rest  the  whole  issue  of  the  present 
controversy.  But  upon  what  is  the  argument  for  them  founded  ? 
On  the  powers  of  government  and  ordination  with  which  it  is 
said  they  were  invested.  But  to  govern  and  ordain  were  not 
the  pecuhar  prerogatives  of  the  apostleship.  We  have  shown 
that  the  work  of  an  apostle,  so  far  as  it  was  peculiar,  and  dis- 
tinguished from  the  work  of  an  ordinary  christian  minister,  was 
to  hear  witness^  from  personal  knowledge^  of  Christ,  his  doings-, 
and  doctrines,  and  resurrection  from  the  dead;  and  that  there 
is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  that,  to  govern  the  church  and 
ordain  ministers,  were  powers  especially,  of  the  apostolic  office. 
We  have  admitted  that  these  prerogatives  did  devolve  at  first, 
upon  those  who  were  apostles,  partly  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  because  there  were  none  besides  to  exercise  them,  and 
partly  from  the  propriety  of  the  case,  because  they  knew  the 
will  of  Christ.  They  were  governors,  not  in  officio,  but  ex 
officio;  because  while  they  lived  they  had  Christ's  mind,  having 
been  formerly  instructed  by  him,  and  being  then  inspired  by  his 
spirit.  But  we  utterly  deny  that  their  apostolic  office  essentially 
included  the  governorship  of  the  churches,  and  the  power  of 
ordination,  and  we  think  we  have  sustained  our  denial  by  proofs 
that  can  not  be  set  aside.  What  is  it  then  to  us,  in  an  argument 
on  the  question,  whether  Timothy  and  Titus  were  apostles,  to 
be  told  that  they  were  vested  with  the  powers  of  government 
and  ordination  ? 

The  question  concerning  a  transfer  of  the  apostleship,  we 
consider  as  settled.  It  is  simply  ridiculous  to  prolong  the  debate 
on  that  point.  The  only  form  under  which  it  seems  to  me 
possible  to  continue  our  discussion,  is  the  following : 

Did  the  apostles  set  in  the  churches  a  class  of  ministers, 
superior  to  presbyters,  who,  without  inheriting  what  was  prop- 
erly the  apostleship,  were  nevertheless  to  be,  peculiarly  and 
exclusively,  their  successors  in  the  business  of  governing?  In 
other  words,  Did  they  appoint  such  a  class  of  ministers  as  the 
diocesan  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church  ? 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  123 

The  question  is  not,  Did  they  ordain  other  apostles  ?  —  we 
are  done  with  that  inquiry.  Did  they  set  prelatic  bishops  over 
the  churches  ? 

I  am  now  brought  again  upon  the  track  of  Mr.  Schuyler, 
and  I  return  with  pleasure  to  take  up  the  thread  of  his  argu- 
mentation, where  I  left  it.  I  recall  the  reader's  attention  to 
page  fifty-four  of  his  book,  where  he  says  —  "  Here,  then,  as 
we  have  shown,  we  have  the  three  orders  after  Christ's  ascen- 
sion, viz.,  apostles,  presbyters,  and  deacons."     He  proceeds, 

"  The  question  now  presents  itself,  to  which,  of  these  three 
orders,  was  the  ordaining  power  committed?  That  the  dea- 
cons were  not  thus  empowered  is  universally  admitted.  It 
rests,  therefore,  between  the  order  indifferently  styled  in  scrip- 
ture *  elders,'  '  presbyters, '  or  '  bishops,'  and  another  order, 
distinguished  as  a  higher  grade,  by  the  exclusive  exercise  of 
this  and  other  powers." 

Now  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  order  to  appreciate  Mr. 
Schuyler's  beauties  to  the  full,  that  he  has  not  even  attempted 
to  show  that  the  apostles,  as  such,  were  an  order  in  the  perma- 
nent ministry,  and,  that  we  have  demonstrated  that  they  were 
not. 

"  We  readily  admit,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  that  the  name  of 
'  bishop,'  which  we  now  appropriate  to  the  highest  grade,  is 
used  in  the  bible,  as  importing  the  same  office  with  'elder'  or 
'  presbyter ; '  but  the  name  is  of  no  moment  —  we  are  seeking 
for  the  FACT,  whether  there  is  more  than  one  grade  of  officers 
in  the  christian  ministry ;  I  care  not  by  what  name  you  may 
call  them." 

We  will  not  dispute  with  our  author  here.  We  are  quite 
wilfing  that  he  should  look  for  the  fact  that  he  is  in  search  of, 
being  perfectly  certain  that  his  search  will  be  fruitless.  And 
yet  this  matter  of  names  does  not  seem  to  us  to  be  so  entirely 
a  matter  of  indifference.  It  is,  at  least,  of  importance  in  aiding 
us  to  understand  the  apostolic  fathers  when  they  write  about 
"  bishops : "  because  nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  suppose, 


124  THE  CHURCH, 

seeing  that  tlie  term  "  bishop"  had  a  fixed  meaning  with  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  writers,  in  the  times 
immediately  following,  would  use  it  in  the  same  sense.  What 
we  object  to,  on  the  part  of  our  Episcopal  friends,  is,  that  they 
should  so  curl  their  lips,  (I  had  almost  used  a  less  decorous 
figure,  borrowed  from  the  next  superior  organ,)  at  the  name, 
"  bishop,"  occurring  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  attach 
such  measureless  importance  to  it  in  the  writings  of  the  early 
fathers,  some  of  whom  were  on  the  stage,  before  the  last  of  the 
apostles  had  disappeared.  Theodoret's  assertion,  quoted  by  our 
author  on  page  fifty-six,  we  take  for  what  it  is  worth,  judging 
of  him,  by  his  belief  in  the  apostleship  of  Epaphroditus.  Theo- 
doret  was  evidently  a  believer  in  some  kind  of  a  prelatic  suc- 
cession from  the  apostles,  having  caught  the  infection  which, 
in  his  time,  had  spread  itself  so  widely  in  the  churches.  —  But 
after  all,  what  is  the  amount  of  his  testimony  ?  Simply  this : 
that  "  in  process  of  time,"  the  name  apostle  was  dropped,  and 
the  name  bishop  substituted  for  it,  as  the  name  of  those,  who, 
it  is  pretended,  received  the  apostles'  office.  This  we  know  as 
well  without  Theodoret's  testimony  as  with  it ;  and  as  his  testi- 
mony was  not  recorded  until  that  had  taken  place  which  we 
know  of  from  other  sources,  it  is  just  as  good  as  n'o  authority  at 
all,  on  wliich  to  claim,  that  while  the  word  "  bishop"  in  the 
New  Testament  always  means  pastor  or  presbyter^  it  means 
prelate  the  very  moment  we  find  it  used  in  other  and  later 
writings. 

On  this  subject  of  names,  our  author  furnishes,  on  page  fifty- 
five,  a  very  striking  and  apposite  witticism,  from  "  that  distin- 
guished writer  and  masterly  controversialist,  Charles  Leslie," 
which  I  could  have  no  object  in  disturbing.  The  same  may 
be  said,  also,  of  another  very  stale  jest,  apparently  supposed  to 
be  original,  on  the  analogy  of  the  words  presbyter  and  alder- 
man. Before  leaving  this  subject  of  names,  I  would  ask  our 
author,  what  advantage  he  hopes  to  derive  from  the  bald  quo- 
tation,  commencing   at   the   bottom   of    page   fifty-six,   from 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  125 

Isadore,  a  cotemporary  of  Theocloret?  —  "The  bishops  suc- 
ceeded the  apostles.  They  were  constituted  through  the  whole 
world,  in  place  of  the  apostles."  Does  he  not  know  that  this 
is  precisely  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  ?  I  have  no  means  of 
consulting  Isadore,  and  can  not  tell  whether  he  used  the  word 
"  bishops,"  in  the  scriptural  sense  or  not.  If  he  used  it  in  the 
prelatic  sense,  which  it  gradually  acquired  as  Episcopal  cor- 
ruption spread  itself,  according  to  Theodoret,  "  in  the  process 
of  time,"  why  then  Isadore  was  a  prelatist,  and  spoke  as  a  pre- 
latist ;  but  if  he  used  it  in  the  scriptural  sense,  then  he  but 
affirmed  what  we  maintain  to  be  the  scriptural  doctrine,  and 
what  all  Presbyterians  believe :  that  the  bishops,  or  elders,  or 
presbyters,  succeeded  to  the  apostles,  and  were  constituted 
through  the  whole  world  in  their  place.  We  believe  that  the 
apostles  constituted  pastors  in  all  the  churches,  and,  that  when 
they  died  and  went  to  heaven,  they  left  the  churches  wholly  in 
their  care.  Whatever  Isadore  meant,  which  I  am  not  able  to 
determine,  he  wrote,  in  this  instance,  like  a  man  well  versed  in 
the -scriptures. 

Mr.  Schuyler  is  now  approaching  the  present  essential  point 
in  debate  between  us.     He  says,  page  fifty-seven : 

"And  that  these  apostles  and  their  successors,  who  were 
afterward  called  bishops,  were  the  only  persons  empowered  to 
govern  the  church  and  ordain,  can  be  clearly  shown  from  the 
epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus." 


WAS  TIMOTHY  PRELATIC  BISHOP  OF  EPHESUS? 

Our  author  may  state  his  argument.  He  says,  page  fifty- 
seven,  and  onward, 

"  It  must  be  evident  to  any  diligent  reader  of  the  epistle  to 
Timothy,  that  one  leading  design  was,  to  instruct  him  in  the 
proper  discharge  of  his  episcopal  duties :  hence  in  the  very 
opening  of  the  epistle  we  find  these  words :  '  I  besought  thee  to 


126  THE  CHURCH, 

remain  still  at  Ephesus,  tliat  thou  mightest  charge  some  that 
they  teach  no  other  doctrine.'  Here,  then,  is  an  express  decla- 
ration, that  Timothy  was  to  exercise  discipline  over  those  in  the 
church  of  Ephesus  who  were  appointed  to  minister  and  to 
teach.  He  then  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions of  bishops  or  elders,  and  deacons  in  the  church,  and  in  the 
same  connection,  adds  —  'These  things  write  I  unto  thee, 
hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly ;  hut  if  I  tarry  too  long,  that 
thou  mayest  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  church  of  God' 
—  an  expression  which  surely  can  not  be  construed  of  personal 
deportment  in  the  public  worship  of  the  sanctuary ;  for  no  one 
can  doubt  that  Timothy  had  piety  and  intelligence  enough  to 
teach  him  to  conduct  properly  there.  It  must,  therefore,  refer 
to  the  proper  discharge  of  those  episcopal  duties  which  St. 
Paul  had  just  enumerated  in  the  preceding  verses,  viz.,  his  care 
in  the  choice  of  proper  persons  for  the  ofiices  of  presbyters  and 
deacons :  and  this  clearly  indicates  that  he  was  invested  with 
episcopal  authority.  Toward  the  close  of  this  epistle  we  find 
more  specific  directions :  '  Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but  entreat  him 
as  a  father.'  '  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation,  but 
before  two  or  three  witnesses '  —  thus  showing,  that  to  Timothy 
was  committed  the  power  of  judging  and  pronouncing  sentence 
upon  the  elders.  Well  might  his  compeers,  (the  elders,)  if  they 
were  his  compeers,  and  ministers  with  like  authority,  indig- 
nantly rebuke  his  presumption,  saying,  '  Man,  who  made  thee  a 
judge  over  us.'     But  we  hear  of  no  such  rebellion. 

"  And  in  the  second  epistle,  which  was  written  only  a  short 
time  before  St.  Paul's  death,  and  while  a  prisoner  at  Rome, 
bequeathing  it  as  a  dying  legacy  to  his  son  Timothy,  he  does 
not  neglect  to  instruct  him  as  to  the  government  of  the  church. 
From  this  epistle  it  appears  clearly,  that  the  power  to  ordain 
was  committed  singly  to  Timothy.  He  expressly  charges  him, 
*  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.'  —  And  again,  '  The  things 
that  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  among  many  witnesses,  the  same 
commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  127 

also.'  These  epistles  were  botli  written  after  St.  Paul  had 
called  the  elders  of  Ephesus  together  at  Miletus,  and  given 
them  instructions  as  to  the  proper  discharge  of  their  ministerial 
duties.  I  wish  you  to  examine  these  instructions  at  your 
leisure,  brethren,  and  to  see  if  you  can  find  any  authority  given 
to  owe,  or  any  of  these  elders,  such  as  we  have  shown  given  to 
Timothy,  to  exercise  discipline  over  the  clergy^  or  to  ordain. 
The  passage  to  which  I  refer,  will  be  found  in  Acts  xx,  begin- 
ning at  the  eighteenth  verse. 

"  But  —  as  we  have  clearly  shown  —  the  right  to  exercise 
discipline  and  to  ordain  was  given  to  Timothy^  and  as  we  have 
stated,  after  St.  Paul's  instructions  to  the  elders  at  Miletus; 
Timothy  was  sent  to  them  to  exercise  this  authority  over  them. 
Here^  then.,  we  have  the  diocese  of  Ephesus,  ivith  many  2^cls- 
tors  over  their  respective  churches,  and  an  apostolic  bishop 
entrusted  toith  the  general  supervision,  and  alone  authorized  to 
exercise  discipline  and  ordainP 

It  is  gratifying  to  have  the  Episcopal  claim  for  Timothy  set 
out  in  a  clear  ^nd  unambiguous  light.  Our  author  is  aware,  I 
presume,  that  some  very  distinguished  writers  of  his  church,  in 
England,  have  maintained  that  Timothy  was  archbishop  of 
Ephesus,  and  some,  that  he  was  even  primate  of  all  pro-consular 
Asia.  But  as  Episcopalians  in  this  country  have  nothing  to  do 
with  archbishoprics  and  primacies,  it  could  hardly  be  expected 
that  an  American  writer's  fancy  would  soar  to  such  lofty  things. 
The  simple  question  for  this  longitude  is,  "Was  Timothy 
prelatic  bishop)  of  Ephesus  ? 

Mr.  Schuyler  seems  very  confident  that  he  has  established 
the  affirmative.  It  is  really  refreshing  to  contemplate  the 
huge  satisfaction  with  which  he  announces  his  conclusion  — 
"  Here,  then,  we  have  the  diocese  of  Ephesus^''  (fee.  (fee. ! 

Let  us  briefly  examine  the  premises  from  which  his  conclu- 
sion is  derived.  His  points,  as  nearly  as  I  can  arrive  at  them 
by  a  careful  analysis,  are  the  following : 


128  THE  CHURCH, 

First.  "  Timothy  was  to  exercise  discipline  over  those  in  the 
cliurch  of  Ephesus,  who  were  appointed  to  minister  and  teach." 
He  was  "to  exercise  discipline  over  the  clergy." 

Second.  Timothy  was  to  attend  to  the  "  choice  of  proper  per- 
sons for  the  offices  of  presbyters  and  deacons,"  which  "  clearly 
indicates  that  he  was  in\'ested  with  episcopal  authority." 

Third.  "  The  power  to  ordain  was  committed  singly  to 
Timothy." 

Fourth.  "The  right  to  exercise  discipline  and  ordain  was 
given  to  Timothy  —  after  St.  Paul's  instructions  to  the  elders 
at  Miletus,  Timothy  was  sent  to  them  to  exercise  this  authority 
over  themr 

First.  "  Timothy  was  to  exercise  discipline  over  those  hi  the 
church  of  Ephesus  who  were  appointed  to  i7iinister  and  teachV 
He  was  "  to  exercise  discipline  over  the  clergy P  The  proof  of 
this  proposition  our  author  finds  in  the  first  epistle  i :  3  —  "As 
I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into 
Macedonia,  that  thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no 
other  doctrine^  "  Here,  then,"  he  says,  commenting  on  this 
text,  "es  an  express  declaration,  that  Timothy  vjcis  to  exercise 
discipline  over  those  in  the  church  of  Ephesus  who  were 
appointed^^  &c.  &c.  Now  where  does  he  learn  that  the  exercise 
of  discipline  was  involved  in  the  duty  enjoined  in  this  place, 
on  Timothy?  And  where  does  he  learn,  that  those  whom 
Timothy  was  to  charge  not  to  teach  any  other  doctrine,  were 
persons  who  had  been  appointed  to  minister  and  teach  ^" 
Where  does  he  learn,  that  they  were  "  the  clergy  ? "  All  is 
assumption  —  without  reason  or  authority.  It  is  not  known, 
and  can  not  be,  who  those  false  teachers  were.  Macknight  and 
others  say  merely,  that  they  were  probably  Judaizers,  i.  e., 
persons  who  insisted  that  the  Gentile  converts  should  be  cir- 
cumcised, &c.  &c.,  in  conformity  with  the  Jewish  law. —  These, 
Timothy  was  to  charge.  The  word  in  the  original,  par aggeiles, 
Mr.  Barnes  says,  "seems  to  mean  more  than  is  commonly 
implied  by  the  word  as  used  by  us.     If  it  had  been  a  single 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  129 

direction  or  command,  it  might  have  been  given  by  Paul  him- 
self before  he  left,  but  it  seems  rather  to  refer  to  that  continu- 
ous instruction  which  would  convince  those  various  errorists, 
and  lead  them  to  inculcate  only  the  true  doctrine."  Does  Mr. 
Schuyler  suppose  that  false  doctrine  can  be  taught  only  by 
"  the  clergy  ? "  or,  that  a  charge  given  to  errorists  to  abstain 
from  inculcating  their  false  doctrines,  must-  of  necessity  be 
an  episcopal  charge? 

Second.  Timothy  was  to  attend  to  the  "  choice  of  proper  per- 
sons for  the  offices  of  presbyters  and  deacons"  which  "  clearly 
indicates  that  he  was  invested  with  episcopal  authority.''* 
Has  Mr.  Schuyler  proved,  or  attempted  to  prove,  that  Timothy 
was  invested  with  any  exclusive  powers  relating  to  the  choice 
of  persons  for  the  presbyterial  and  diaconal  offices  ?  He  has 
not.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  exclusive  authority,  we  shall 
speak  in  another  place.  We  do  not  deny  that  Timothy  had 
committed  to  him,  for  the  time  being,  the  general  direction  and 
supervision  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  or  that  Paul  in  the  third 
chapter  of  the  first  epistle,  is  giving  him  instructions  for  the 
proper  arranging  and  settling  of  its  affairs.  We  simply  deny 
here,  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  conclusion, —  that  Tim- 
othy must  therefore  have  been  ^^  invested  ivith  episcopal 
authority ^^' —  i.  e.  that  he  must  have  been  prelatic  bishop  of 
Ephesus. 

The  apostle  having  stated  the  proper  qualifications  of  bishops 
and  deacons,  says, —  "  These  things  I  write  unto  thee,  hoping 
to  come  unto  thee  shortly ;  but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  may- 
est  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God."  Our 
author  miglit  have  saved  the  labor  of  his  very  profound  criti- 
cism on  the  words  "  that  thou  mightest  know  how  to  behave 
thyself  in  the  house  of  God."  His  own  people  may  have 
been  edified  —  I  know  not  who  else  could  be  —  by  being  told 
that  Timothy  was  not  written  to  now  as  a  child,  to  instruct  him 
how  he  should  behave  in  meeting;  undoubtedly,  Paul  was 
giving   him   directions   for  the   management  of  ecclesiastical 


130  THE  CHURCH, 

affairs, — Who  ever  supposed  otherwise?  What  then?  Does 
it  follow  that  Timothy  was  an  Episcopal  bishop  ?  The  only 
explanation  which  the  words  just  quoted  admit  of,  is  the  follow- 
ing :  Paul  tells  Timothy  that  he  writes  him  these  instructions, 
not  supposing  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  for  him  to  do  so, 
because  he  hoped  shortly  to  return  to  Ephesus,  and  take  charge 
of  things  himself,  personally ;  yet  he  writes  them  to  make  sure 
that  if,  contrary  to  his  expectations,  his  return  should  be  long 
delayed,  he,  i.  e.  Timothy  would  know  how  to  demean  himself, 
and  to  do  in  a  proper  manner  the  things  which  the  welfare  of 
the  church  required  to  be  done.  Nothing  could  be  plainer 
than  it  is  from  this,  that  Timothy's  superintendence  at  Ephe- 
sus was  to  cease  whenever  Paul  should  return  there.  The 
responsibility  at  present  devolving  upon  him  was  temporary 
and  accidental,  owing  to  the  apostle's  sudden  and  premature 
departure.  On  the  passage  now  under  consideration,  Mr. 
Barnes  says,  in  his  notes, — ^^  These  things  T  write  unto  thee, 
hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly T  "  That  is,  he  hoped  to 
come  there  to  give  instructions  personally,  or  to  finish,  himself, 
the  work  which  he  had  commenced  in  Ephesus,  and  which  had 
been  interrupted  by  his  being  driven  away  so  unexpectedly. 
This  verse  proves  that  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  regard  Timo- 
thy as  the  permanent  diocesan  bishop  of  Ej^hesus.  Would 
any  Episcopal  bishop  Avrite  this  to  another  bishop  ?  If  Timothy 
had  been  the  permanent  prelate  of  Ephesus,  would  Paul  have 
intimated  that  he  expected  soon  to  come  and  take  the  work  of 
completing  the  arrangements  there  into  his  own  hands  ? " 

Let  the  reader  look  at  other  evidence,  that  Timothy's  charge 
at  Ephesus  was  temporary  and  accidental.  Be  it  remembered, 
the  claim  is,  that  he  was  properly  and  specifically  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  Ephesus,  therefore,  was  his  field.  He  was  not 
simply  a  casual  and  occasional  laborer  there,  but  that  was  his 
appropriate  and  peculiar  charge.  There  were  his  duties  and 
responsibilities,  and  there  he  was  bound  by  his  office  to  be,  and 
to  abide.     See  how  this  view  of  the  subject  corresponds  with 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  131 

what  Paul  says  to  him,  in  the  opening  of  the  first  epistle, — 
"Unto  Timothy  my  son,  *  *  *  as  /  besought  thee  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou 
mightest  charge  some,"  &c.  Now,  how  came  Timothy  to  be 
at  Ephesus  at  all,  when  this  epistle  was  written?  Was  it 
because  that  was  his  home?  Was  it  because  his  special  and 
appropriate  duties  were  there  ?  Was  it  because  he  was  bishop 
of  Ephesus,  and  therefore  under  ofiicial  obhgations  to  be  there  ? 
Not  in  the  least.  He  w^as  in  Ephesus  at  the  earnest  solicitation 
of  Paul.  He  and  the  apostle  had  been  there  in  company ; 
and,  when  a  difficulty  arose,  which  made  it  necessary  for  the 
apostle  to  leave,  Timothy  would  have  left  also, —  as  little  bound 
to  the  place  as  Paul  himself.  He  desired  and  proposed  to 
leave.  If  not,  why  did  Paul  beseech  him  to  remain  ?  And 
he  remained  simply  and  only  to  gratify  Paul's  ^^^shes.  Does 
this  look  as  though  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus?  What! 
must  the  bishop  of  Ephesus  be  induced  to  remain  in  his  own 
diocese  only  by  earnest  entreaties,  and  this,  too,  at  a  time  when 
his  presence  there  Avas  most  especially  needful,  on  account  of 
the  prevalence  of  dangerous  heresies,  and  the  busy  efforts  of 
false  teachers  ?  Incredible !  We  can  not  think  so  ill  of  Timo- 
thy. And  for  what  purpose  was  Timothy  besought  by  Paul 
to  remain  at  Ephesus  ?  Was  it  not  for  a  specific  service,  to 
repress  heresy,  and  to  prosecute  the  apostle's  own  unfinished 
work  ?  — "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I 
went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they 
teach  no  other  doctrine."  If  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus, 
why  did  not  Paul  say  that  he  besought  him  to  remain  there, 
because  it  was  right  and  proper  that  he  should  do  so,  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  his  episcopal  office  ?  There  was  a  special 
work  to  be  done ;  a  special  exigency  required  the  presence  in 
that  city  of  some  one,  who  would  be  likely  to  command  respect, 
and  whose  name  would  carry  the  weight  of  authority  with  it. 
Those  false  teachers  particularly  were  to  be  silenced ;  and  Tim- 
othy,  as  one  who  had  enjoyed  singular  advantages,  having 


132  THE  CHURCH, 

associated  much  with  the  apostles,  and  whose  reputation  for 
piety  and  wisdom  was  well  established,  was  besought  by  Paul 
to  remain,  and  do  what  he  could,  to  settle  and  harmonize  the 
disturbed  affairs  of  the  church. 

It  is  plain,  furthermore,  that  neither  Paul  nor  Timothy  him- 
self had  any  idea  that  this  was  to  be  the  permanent  residence 
of  the  latter.  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus." 
That  is  simply,  and  upon  no  possible  construction  can  it  be 
made  to  mean  more,  not  to  leave  with  me,  hut  to  remain 
longer  —  leaving  the  expression  of  the  time  indefinite,  yet 
implying,  as  clearly  as  it  could  be  implied,  that  it  was  to  be 
only  for  a  season.  That^  as  a  fact^  Timothy  did  not  remain 
permanently  at  Ephesus,  will  be  noticed  hereafter. 

Third.  "  The  power  to  ordain  ivas  committed  singly  to 
Timothy r  What  are  our  author's  proofs  of  this  ?  He  says, — 
"From  this  epistle  {the  second)  it  appears  clearly,  that  the 
power  to  ordain  was  committed  singly  to  Timothy.  He  (Paul) 
expressly  charges  him  — "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man." 
And  again  —  "  The  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among 
many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall 
be  able  to  teach  others  also."  These  texts  barely  quoted,  compose 
the  sum  total  of  his  argument.  It  may  seem  to  be  a  matter  of 
small  moment,  whether  the  charge  to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on 
no  man,"  is  found  in  the  first  epistle  or  the  second ;  yet,  for  the 
truth's  sake,  and  for  another  important  reason  that  will  be  seen 
hereafter,  I  choose  to  inform  the  reader,  if  indeed  he  needs  to 
be  informed,  that  it  is  in  the  first  epistle,  at  the  twenty-second 
verse  of  the  fifth  chapter.  The  second  epistle  does  not  contain 
a  syllable  on  the  subject  of  ordination,  or  of  any  other  of  the 
so-called  episcopal  powers.  There  is  not  a  word  in  it,  which 
Mr.  Schuyler  himself  could  possibly  regard  as  inappropriate  to 
be  addressed  to  any  minister  of  the  gospel. — ^'•The  things  that 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  com- 
mit  thou  to  faithful  men  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  alsoJ'' 
Can  it  be  possible  that  my  brother  regards  this   passage  as 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  133 

relating  to  the  ordination  of  ministers  ?  I  think  he  may  easily 
be  satisfied  that  it  has  no  such  reference.  In  what  manner  had 
Timothy  received  the  things  spoken  of,  which  he  was  to  commit 
to  faithful  (?'.  e.  pious  or  believing)  men  ?  Had  he  received 
them  by  his  ordination?  No;  by  hearing  them  of  Paul. 
''''The  things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  the  same  commit 
thou,"  &c.,  &c.  In  what  manner  were  those  to  whom  Timothy 
should  commit  them,  to  hand  them  down  to  their  successors  ? 
By  ordaining  their  successors?  No;  by  teaching  them,  as 
Paul  had  taught  Timothy, — "The  same  commit  thou  unto 
faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  alsoP  Now 
what  was  it  to  commit?  Was  it  to  ordain  to  the  ministry? 
He  is  but  a  poor  expositor  of  the  bible  who  thinks  so.  The 
subject  of  the  text  under  consideration  is  teaching,  and  not 
ordination;  teaching,  I  suppose,  with  special  reference  to  quali- 
fying for  the  gospel  ministry,  which  I  believe  is  not  regarded 
as  one  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  prelates.  The  best  com- 
mentators sustain  this  exposition.  In  so  plain  a  case,  time  need 
not  be  consumed  with  quotations.  Mr.  Schuyler's  argument 
from  the  second  epistle  must,  I  think,  be  admitted  to  be  a 
failure. 

Fourth.  "  The  right  to  exercise  discipline  and  to  ordain^ 
was  given  to  Timothy  after  St.  PauVs  instructions  to  the 
elders  at  Miletus;  Timothy  was  sent  to  them  to  exercise  this 
authority  over  themP 

This  our  author  affirms,  on  the  ground  of  his  assertion  that 
"  These  epistles  {i.  e.  the  two  to  Timothy)  were  both  written 
after  St.  Paul  had  called  the  elders  of  Ephesus  together  at 
Miletus,  and  had  given  them  instructions,"  &c.,  (fee.  He  is  mis- 
taken. T\\Q  first  epistle,  which  alone  contains  any  thing  on  the 
subjects  of  disciphne  and  ordination,  was  written  before  the 
interview  of  Paul  with  the  elders,  at  Miletus.  Townsend,  in 
his  chronological  arrangement  of  the  bible,  assigns  this  epistle 
to  the  year  A.  D.  56-Y,  and  the  interview  with  the  elders,  to 
A.  D.  58.     Lardner  —  Works,  voh  6,  page  21, -Lond. —  says, 


134  THE  CHURCH, 

"  The  first  epistle  to  Timotliy  was  written  in  the  year  A.  D.  56, 
and  probably  some  good  while  before  the  end  of  it."  The 
reasons  for  this  opinion  he  gives  at  length,  assigning  the  inter- 
view at  Miletus  to  the  year  fifty-eight.  Respecting  the  date  of 
the  latter  event,  all  chronologists  are  agreed.  In  regard  to  the 
relative  dates  of  this  epistle  and  the  interview  at  Miletus,  Light- 
foot  takes  the  same  view.  So  also  Hale^ — see  Hale's  Chronology, 
vol.  5,  p.  429,  Lond.  So  also  Michaelis  and  Dr.  Benson,  —  see 
Michaelis'  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  4,  p.  75,  Lond. 

Hug  says,  see  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  And- 
over  edition,  p.  534 — "Paul  went  from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia, 
leaving  Timothy  behind  him,  (1  Tim.  i:  3,)  and  soon  after 
wrote  this  epistle.  The  apostle  was  at  Ephesus  twice;  on 
which  occasion  did  this  occur  ? 

"After  his  first  visit  to  this  city,  —  Acts  xviii:  19-23, — 
he  went  to  Jerusalem ;  and  the  departure  to  Macedonia,  men- 
tioned in  this  epistle,  could  not  have  taken  place  then.  The 
other  visit  to  Ephesus  is  related  in  Acts  xix:  1-41.  After  a 
long  residence  here,  he  was  obliged  to  leave  the  city,  on  account 
of  an  uproar;  and  then  dei^arted  to  go  into  Macedonia. — Acts 
XX :  1,  seq.  The  epistle  was  written  on  this  occasion,  between 
the  first  and  the  second  to  the  Corinthians. 

"  To  suppose,  for  the  purpose  of  this  epistle,  a  later  visit  of 
the  apostle  to  Ephesus,  in  addition  to  the  two  mentioned  in  the 
Acts,  —  one  undertaken,  perhaps,  after  his  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  —  is  forbidden  by  the  circumstances.  Among  other 
things  lying  at  the  foundation  of  this  epistle,  is  the  fact,  that 
the  teachers  and  elders  of  the  church,  who  should  coiiduct  its 
affairs,  had  not  yet  been  appointed.  Now,  a  few  months  after, 
when  Paul  returned  to  Asia  from  his  Macedonian  journey,  this 
had  been  done;  as  he  sent  for  the  elders  from  Ephesus  to 
Miletus,  that  he  might  see  them  in  their  new  calling,  and  repre- 
sent and  enforce  the  duties  of  the  ofiice  they  had  assumed.  — 
Acts  XX :  17-28  seq.  The  einstle  must,  therefore,  have 
preceded  this  occurrencer 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  135 

Authorities  of  a  similar  character  might  be  quoted  to  almost 
any  extent.  Dr.  John  Mason,  in  his  book  on  Episcopacy,  says, 
page  199  —  "  This  first  epistle  was  written  when  Paul  was  at 
Macedonia,  as  the  learned.^  both  new  and  old,  Papists  and  Pro- 
testants, agree.  And  it  was  after  this,  when  Paul  came  to 
Miletum,  accompanied  with  Timothy,  and  sends  for  the  elders 
of  the  church  of  Ephesus." 

I  know  that  Pearson,  and  Whitby,  and  Mill,  have  taken  a 
different  view  of  this  subject,  but  their  authority  is  nothing  in 
opposition  to  that  which  I  have  given.  If  any  minor  fact  in 
scripture  chronology  may  be  regarded  as  settled,  this  fact  may 
be ;  and  yet  our  learned  and  most  candid  author  says,  without 
qualification,  and  without  a  word  of  comment,  that  "  both  these 
epistles  were  written  after  St.  Paul  had  called  the  elders  of 
Ephesus  together  at  Miletus ! "  and  upon  this  fact  rests  one  of 
his  main  arguments  for  the  episcopate  of  Timothy  !  He  says, 
"  Timothy  was  sent  to  them,  {i.  e.  the  elders,)  to  exercise  this 
authority  (or  discipline)  over  themT  Now  the  truth  is,  as  Hug 
affirms  in  the  above  extract,  that,  when  the  first  epistle  was 
written  to  Timothy,  "  the  teachers  and  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  who  should  conduct  its  affairs,  had  not  yet  been  ap- 
pointedr  Let  it  be  observed,  in  connection  with  this,  that  the 
second  epistle,  which  was  written  after  teachers  and  elders 
had  been  appointed  at  Ephesus,  contains  not  one  word  on  the 
subject  of  disciphne,  or  of  any,  so-called,  episcopal  power,  and 
the  worth  of  our  author's  statement  appears  in  a  proper  and 
conspicuous  light.     Says  Dr.  Mason : 

"  If  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  must  have  been  when 
the  first  epistle  was  written.  For  it  is  that  epistle,  in  which  he 
is  said  to  receive  his  pretended  charge,  of  exercising  his  episco- 
pal power  in  ordination  and  jurisdiction.  But  now,  this  first 
epistle  was  written  when  Paul  was  at  Macedonia;  as  the 
learned,  both  new  and  old.  Papists  and  Protestants,  agree. 
And  it  was  after  this,  when  Paul  came  to  Miletum,  accompa- 
nied with  Timothy,  and  sends  for  the  elders  of  the  church  of 


136  THE  CHURCH, 

Ephesus  unto  him,  and  commends  tlie  government  of  the 
church  unto  these  elders  —  whom  he  calls  bishops.  Now 
surely,  if  Timothy  had  been  constituted  their  bishop,  (in  the 
sense  of  our  adversaries,)  the  apostle  would  not  have  called  the 
elders,  bishops,  before  their  bishop's  face ;  and,  instead  of  giving 
a  charge  to  the  elders,  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ,  he  would 
have  given  that  charge  to  Timothy,  and  not  to  them ;  and,  no 
doubt,  he  would  have  given  some  directions  to  the  elders  how 
to  carry  themselves  toward  their  bishop.  And,  because  none  of 
these  things  were  done,  it  is  a  clear  demonstration,  to  us,  that 
Timothy  was  not,  at  that  time,  bishop  of  Ephesus." 

Suppose  we  were  to  admit  that  the  fii*st  epistle  to  Timothy 
was  written  after  the  interview  of  Paul  with  the  elders  at  Mi- 
letus, and  that  the  Ephesian  church  was  fully  supplied  with 
elders  and  teachers  at  the  very  time  that  Timothy  received  all 
these  directions  concerning  the  exercise  of  discipline  and  ordi- 
nation —  what  then  ?  would  it  follow  that  all  this  authority, 
appertained  to  him  singly?  On  this  false  assumption,  which 
now  for  argument's  sake,  we  are  willing  to  allow,  connected 
with  the  fact  that  Paul's  epistle  was  addressed  to  Timothy,  and 
not  to  the  elders,  and  that  whatever  he  says,  he  says  to  Am, 
and  not  to  them,  using  the  pronouns  thee  and  thou,  our  author 
constructs  his  entire  argument  for  Timothy's  exclusive  juris- 
diction and  power.  Timothy  alone  is  addressed  by  name ; 
therefore,  he  concludes,  Timothy  alone  was  to  do  the  things 
concerning  which  the  apostle  wrote.  On  the  broad  ground  of 
such  a  demonstration  as  this,  he  claims,  according  to  an  amus- 
ing habit  in  which  he  constantly  indulges,  to  "  have  clearly 
shown  "  that  Timothy  possessed  all  the  powers  of  a  true  episco- 
pacy, or,  in  his  own  words,  with  his  own  italics,  that  "  The  right 
to  exercise  discipline  and  ordain  was  given  to  Timothy  —  after 
St.  Paul's  instructions  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,"  and  that  "  Tim- 
othy was  sent  to  them,  to  exercise  this  authority  over  themV 

The  force  and  pertinency  of  the  argument  may  be  illustrated 
in  a  very  simple  manner.      Suppose  that  bishop  Delancy  were 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  137 

to  wiite  a  letter  to  Mr.  Schuyler,  and  among  other  things,  to 
say  —  "I  charge  thee,  my  dear  son,  to  be  very  zealous  in  thy 
work  of  preaching  the  gospel  and  administering  the  sacraments 
in  Buffalo.  Remember  that  thou  art  not  to  give  the  sacred 
memorials  of  thy  Lord  to  any  that  walk  disorderly,"  (fee.  On 
the  principle  of  our  author's  reasoning,  might  it  not  be  main- 
tained from  this  letter,  that  he  alone  has  the  right  to  preach 
and  administer  the  sacraments  in  Buffalo?  Does  not  the 
bishop  expressly  charge  him  ?  Does  he  not  say  thee,  and  thou, 
to  the  heart's  content  of  any  one  most  ambitious  for  my  friend's 
elevation  ?  Dr.  Shelton  and  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  such  a  case  as  this, 
would  surely  find  it  necessary  to  look  after  their  commissions. 

Admitting  every  thing  that  our  author  desires,  in  regard  to 
the  date  of  this  epistle,  it  would  be  simply  absurd  to  say,  that 
the  style  of  it,  as  addressed  personally  to  Timothy,  proves  that 
he  alone  possessed  the  powers,  in  regard  to  the  exercise  of  which 
the  epistle  gives  directions.  We  do  not  in  the  least  doubt,  that 
while  Timothy  remained  at  Ephesus,  whether  before  or  after 
the  ordination  of  elders,  he  was  the  head  man,  and  exercised, 
in  relation  to  all  ecclesiastical  affairs,  a  controlling  influence. 
His  experience  and  wisdom,  to  say  nothing  of  the  authority  he 
derived  from  being  especially  employed  as  an  assistant  of  the 
apostles,  is  sufficient  to  account  for  this,  without  supposing  any 
thing  more.  It  was  eminently  proper,  therefore,  that  he  should 
be  particularly  instructed  in  regard  to  all  matters  relating  to 
the  welfare  of  the  church;  and  the  fact  of  his  being  so 
instructed  does  not  conflict  in  the  slightest  degree  with  the 
idea,  that,  in  all  authoritative  transactions,  others  participated 
with  him,  as  officially  his  equals. 

But  our  author  lays  great  stress  upon  vfhat  he  calls  "  the 
instructions  to  the  elders."  He  says  —  "I  wish  you  to  examine 
these  instructions  at  your  leisure,  brethren,  and  see  if  you  can 
find  any  authority  given  to  one  or  any  of  these  elders,  such  as 
we  have  shown  given  to  Timothy,  to  exercise  discipline  over 
the  clergy,  and  to  ordain^ 


138  THE    CHURCH, 

Now,  of  course,  whatever  importance  this  argument  derives 
from  the  sujoposition  that  Paul's  interview  with  the  elders  took 
place  before  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  was  written,  is  gone  — 
for  the  supposition  is  false.  But  even  allowing  the  supposition 
to  be  true,  what  ground  does  our  author  find  here  for  denying 
that  the  elders  participated  in  all  the  duties  and  powers  which 
are  claimed  for  Timothy  ?  The  argument  is,  that  no  mention 
is  made  of  any  such  matters  in  the  address  which  Paul  deliv- 
ered to  them  on  that  occasion.  But  what  was  the  nature  of 
that  address  ?  We  afiSrm  that  it  was  in  no  respect  whatever 
such  as  Mr.  Schuyler  seems  resolved  upon  regarding  it.  He 
calls  it,  "  St.  PauVs  instructions  to  the  elders  "  —  as  though  it 
were  professedly  a  programme  of  their  powers  and  duties. 
Let  any  one  turn  to  the  place,  in  Acts  xx,  which  is  too  long  to 
be  quoted,  and  read  from  the  eighteenth  verse,  and  then  decide 
for  himself  whether  it  was  intended  as  an  instructive  discourse 
to  the  elders  on  the  powers  and  duties  of  their  oflice,  or  as  a 
mere  farewell,  and  parting  exhortation.  Almost  the  whole  of 
it  is  taken  up  with  the  apostle's  account  of  his  own  labors  and 
trials,  of  what  he  had  already  suffered,  and  what  he  expected 
yet  to  suffer,  in  the  service  of  his  di\dne  Master,  with  affec- 
tionate assurances  of  his  love,  and  commendations  of  them  and 
their  cause  to  God.  Of  the  eighteen  verses  in  which  the  whole 
speech  is  found,  only  one  lias  any  thing  —  and  that  of  the  most 
general  character  —  on  the  subject  of  their  duties,  save  a  single 
exhortation  afterward  to  watch,  and  a  passing  allusion  to  the 
matter  of  making  suitable  provision  for  the  poor.  Yet  these 
are  the  instructions  to  the  elders!  and  my  brother  Schuyler, 
and  all  Episcopal  writers,  insist  that  we  shall  look  to  this  place 
for  a  complete  list  of  all  the  functions  of  the  presbyterial  office ! 
It  is  just  such  an  absurdity  as  we  are  having  specimens  of,  ad 
nauseam,  in  all  our  controversy  with  this  school  of  theologians. 
The  famous  instructions  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  of 
which  we  hear  so  much,  turn  out,  on  the  slightest  examination, 
to  be  no  instructions  at  all,  in  any  proper  sense  of  that  word. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  139 

What,  in  any  case,  therefore,  is  gained  toward  determining  that 
the  whole  right  to  exercise  discipliiie  and  to  ordain  at  Ephesiis, 
was  committed  to  Timothy,  by  comparing  the  epistles  that  were 
written  to  him  with  this  address  of  Paul  to  the  elders  ? 

If,  however,  we  should  consent  to  take  our  author's  view  of 
what  he  calls  the  instructions^  let  a  fair  exposition  be  made  of 
Paul's  words  in  the  twenty-eighth  verse,  and  what  do  our  Epis- 
copal brethren  gain  ?  —  "  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves, 
and  to  all  the  flocTc,  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  overseers,  {episcopous,  bishops,)  to  feed  the  church  of  Ood, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  bloods  If  they  had 
been  made  overseers,  bishops  of  the  flock  or  church  of  God, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  should  like  to  know  who,  except  God 
himself,  was  really  above  them  ?  Let  the  place  be  pointed  out, 
in  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  in  which  a  term  of  higher  dignity, 
or  one  implying  superior  jurisdiction,  is  applied  to  him. 

In  every  point,  Mr.  Schuyler's  argument  is  a  failure.  I  am 
sure  I  do  not  speak  extravagantly,  when  I  say,  that  he  has 
made  out  absolutely  nothing.  He  does  not  present  a  single 
plea  for  Timothy's  episcopate,  which  can  bear  examination  for 
a  moment. 

He  talks  of  powers  given  to  Timothy  to  exercise  discipline 
and  to  ordain,  at  Ephesus,  after  the  interview  of  Paul  with  the 
elders  at  Miletus  —  it  is  simply  ridiculous.  Timothy  exercised 
at  Ephesus  no  powers,  which  he  might  not  have  exercised  just 
as  freely  at  Corinth,  or  at  Rome.  Let  the  reader  consider  for 
himself,  the  words  with  which  Paul's  first  epistle  to  him  begins : 
"  Paul  —  unto  Timothy,  my  son  in  the  faith  —  as  I  besought 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Macedonia, 
that  thou  mightest  charge  some,  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine, neither  give  heed  to  fables,^''  &c.,  &c.  Now,  did  the 
apostle  ordain  Timothy  to  a  new  office  there,  or  did  he  leave 
him  to  exercise  an  office  which  he  already  had  ?  What  allusion 
is  there  to  the  subject  of  new  powers  ?  If  Paul  had  made 
Timothy  bishop,  for  the  permanent  government  of  the  Ephesian 


140  THE  CHURCH, 

churcli,  wliy  does  lie  not  say  so  ?  or,  at  least,  wliy  does  he 
not  say  something  from  which  that  fact  might  be  inferred  ? 
Why  does  he  content  himself  with  saying  merely  —  "I 
besought  thee  to  aUde  still  at  Ephesus  ? "  The  inference  is 
irresistible,  that  Timothy  remained  at  Ephesus  with  no  change 
in  his  official  character,  simply  to  exercise  an  office  which  he 
previously  had,  and  to  perform  duties,  to  which,  by  virtue  of 
that  office,  he  was  perfectly  competent,  and  which  he  might 
have  performed  in  any  other  place  just  as  well  as  there. 

What  was  Timothy  ?  He  was  an  evangelist.  See  second 
epistle  iv :  5,  —  "  But  watch  thou  in  all  things,  endure  afflictions, 
do  the  work  of  an  evangelist;  make  full  proof  of  thy  ministry." 
What  were  evangelists  ?  They  were  a  class  of  extraordinary 
ministers  in  the  early  church,  who  seem  to  have  been  employed 
chiefly  as  aids  or  assistants  of  the  apostles  in  their  missionary 
labors, —  who  were  sent  here  and  there  to  transact  important 
business,  which  the  apostles,  being  so  few  in  number,  were 
unable  to  attend  to  in  person.  They  are  mentioned  by  Paul, 
Eph.  iv:  11,  in  a  distinct  enumeration  which  he  makes  of 
the  different  classes  of  persons  then  employed  in  the  ministry 
of  the  church  — "  And  he  gave  some,  apostles ;  and  some,  pro- 
phets; and  some,  evangelists;  and  some  pastors  and  teachers." 
I  suppose  that  they  were  elders,  whom  the  apostles  had  called 
in  the  exigency  of  the  times,  to  a  more  general  and  responsible 
work  than  that  of  permanently  superintending  single  congrega- 
tions. They  were  companions  of  the  apostles  in  their  travels, — 
as  it  is  well  known  that  Timothy  and  Silas  were  of  Paul  for  a 
great  length  of  time.  Sometimes  they  were  sent  or  went  alone 
into  unevangelized  regions,  to  pi-each  the  gospel  and  lay  the 
foundations  of  churches. —  Thus  Philip  went  down  to  Samaria. 
Sometimes  they  went  before,  as  in  this  case  of  Philip,  and  were 
succeeded  by  the  apostles.  At  other  times  they  came  after, 
entering  into  the  apostles'  labors, —  as  in  the  case  of  Apollos, 
of  whom  Paul  says,  in  one  place,  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos 
watered."    It  often  happened,  that  an  apostle,  traveling  with 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  141 

an  evangelist,  would  leave  liim  behind  for  a  season,  more  per- 
fectly to  organize  and  settle  the  churches  in  a  particular  region 
or  city,  while  he  himself  passed  on  to  other  fields.  Thus,  when 
Paul  could  no  longer  remain  at  Ephesus,  he  besought  Timothy 
to  abide  there  still;  and  when  he  departed  from  Crete, — 
Tit.  i :  5, —  he  left  Titus  in  that  island  to  set  in  order  the  things 
that  were  wanting,  and  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city.  Evange- 
lists, thus  employed  by  the  apostles  as  their  special  assistants, 
seem  to  have  been  regarded  as  very  nearly  equal  to  the  apostles 
in  authority.  Apostles  they  were  not ;  but  in  very  many  respects 
they  acted  in  the  place  of  apostles,  and  performed  what  was 
considered  apostolic  work.  "  Hence,"  says  Dr.  John  Brown,  of 
Edinburgh,  "while  they  are  described  by  TertulHan  as  'apos- 
tolic men,' —  Lib.  4,  Advers.  Mar. —  and  by  Jerome,  as  '  the  sons 
of  the  apostles,' — Comment,  in  Isa.  ch.  65, — Augustine  desig- 
nates them  very  happily,  by  a  most  expressive  name,  signifying 
literally,  '  The  substitutes  of  the  apostles  who  were  almost  equal 
to  them,' —  Sermon  46,  de  tempore."  "  Sometimes,"  says  Dr. 
B.,  "  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  they  appear  to  have  received 
an  immediate  and  supernatural  call;  for  Paul  refers  to  'pro- 
phecies which  went  before  respecting  him ; '  intimating,  probably, 
that  it  was  the  specially  revealed  will  of  God,  that  he  should  be 
appointed  to  this  office,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  said  to  the  prophets 
and  teachers  at  Antioch,  '  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Paul  for 
the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them ! '  We  know,  too,  that 
they  were  endowed  with  the  power  of  working  miracles, —  Acts 
viii :  6,-  8, —  and  it  is  probable  also,  according  to  the  admission 
of  Bilson,  a  famous  advocate  of  the  episcopates  of  Titus  and 
Timothy,  that  they  had  these  two  (other)  gifts,  the  revealing  of 
secrets,  and  discerning  of  spirits,  (though  in  lesser  measure 
than  the  apostles,)  which  served  chiefly  to  distinguish  who  were 
fit  or  unfit  for  the  service  of  Christ's  church." 

Eusehius  says,  respecting  evangelists, —  book  iii:  chap,  37, — 
that  they  were  disciples  of  the  apostles,  "  Who  everywhere  built 
upon  the  foundations  which  the  apostles  had  laid ;  preaching 


142  THE  CHURCH, 

the  gospel,  and  scattering  the  salutary  seeds  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  And  moreover,  very  many 
of  the  disciples  of  that  day  traveled  abroad,  and  performed  the 
work  of  evangelists;  ardently  desirous  of  preaching  Christ  to 
those  who  were  yet  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  doctrine  of 
faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the  scripture  of  the  divine  gospels. 
These  having  merely  laid  the  foundations  of  the  faith^  and 
ordained  other  pastors,  committed  to  them  the  cultivation  of 
the  churches  newly  planted,  while  they  themselves,  supported 
hy  the  grace  and  co-operation  of  God,  proceeded  to  other 
covMtries  and  nations r 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  Eusebius  says  distinctly,  that  evan- 
gelists founded  churches,  and  ordained  pastors  over  them;  — 
which  is  precisely  the  work  that  we  say  evangehsts  might  do, 
and  did  do,  by  virtue  of  their  evangelistic  office. 

Now,  that  Timothy  labored  at  Ephesus  as  an  evangehst,  and 
not  as  episcopal  bishop,  is  perfectly  evident:  First,  from  the 
fact  that  Paul  especially  charges  him,  "  to  do  the  ivork  of  an 
evangelist  "  there.  Second,  from  the  fact,  already  noticed,  that 
he  was  only  induced  to  remain  there  by  the  earnest  entreaties 
of  Paul, —  which  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  idea  of  his 
being  an  evangelist,  whose  field  was  the  world :  but  wholly  at 
variance  with  that  of  his  being  a  bishop  in  the  episcopal  sense, — 
whose  field  is  his  own  diocese.  It  is  evident,  thirdly,  from  the 
similar  fact,  that  Paul  afterward  directed  him  to  leave  Ephesus 
and  come  to  Rome, —  2  Tim.  iv :  9, —  to  be  his  companion  and 
assistant  in  that  city,  in  the  place  of  some  who  had  forsaken 
him.  Would  Paul,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  send  for  an  installed 
bishop  of  a  large  and  important  diocese,  and  call  him  away 
from  his  own  special  charge  ?  If  Timothy  was  an  evangelist, 
there  is  nothing  strange  in  this ;  but  regarding  him  in  the  other 
character,  Paul's  conduct  is  certainly  most  inexplicable.  These 
facts  of  the  case  are  perfectly  conclusive  against  the  pretended 
Ephesian  episcopate. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  143 

I  may  add,  it  is  extremely  unfortunate  for  tlie  claim  of  our 
Episcopal  friends,  tliat  Paul  should  so  distinctly  have  recog- 
nized the  true  episcopal  jurisdiction  of  the  elders  in  his  address 
to  them  at  Miletus.  We  care  not  much,  so  far  as  our  main 
argument  is  concerned,  whether  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  was 
w^ritten  before  or  after  that  interview  with  the  elders.  If  after ^ 
then  the  church  at  Ephesus  was  well  supplied  with  bishops, 
and  could  hardly  need  another  so  very  soon,  the  time  being 
probably  less  than  one  year.  If  hefore^  it  w^as,  to  say  the  least, 
not  very  respectful  to  Timothy  to  apply  his  title  to  all  the 
inferior  clergy. 

I  have  something  more  to  say  in  regard  to  Timothy,  which, 
as  it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  case  of  Titus,  may  be  reserved, 
and  said  of  both  at  once. 


WAS  TITUS   PRELATIC  BISHOP  OF  CRETE? 

Mr.  Schuyler  says,  on  page  sixty, — "  The  epistle  to  Titus  is 
alike  clear  and  explicit  on  this  point.  The  care  of  all  the 
churches  in  the  island  of  Crete,  was  committed  by  St.  Paul  to 
Titus.  It  is  a  well  known  historical  fact,  that  at  this  time  there 
■  were  an  hundred  cities  in  this  island ;  truly  an  extensive  dio- 
cese, demanding  apostolic  energy  and  zeal.  But  to  Titus  alone 
w^as  the  power  to  govern  the  church  there,  and  ordain  elders 
committed.  In  the  opening  of  this  epistle,  St.  Paul  writes, — 
'  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in 
order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every 
city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee.'  Upon  this  verse  it  has  been 
asked, —  Dr.  Thompson's  sermon,  page  thirty, — '  If  Titus  was 
an  apostle,  how  did  it  happen  that  he  appears  in  this  place  so 
entirely  subject  to  Paul,  w^hose  equal  in  that  case  he  must  have 
been  ? '  We  say  in  answer,  that  it  is  evident  from  the  passage 
itself,  that  Titus  was  St.  Paul's  equal,  inasmuch  as  he  was  to 
■perfect  the  work  St.  Paul  had  commenced^  and  to  ordain  elders 


144  THE  CHURCH, 

where  they  were  wanting.  St.  Paul  could  have  done  no  more. 
He  had,  it  is  true,  been  set  apart  to  that  particular  field  by  St. 
Paul ;  but  he  went  there  with  all  the  powers  of  an  apostle. 
St.  Paul,  further  on  in  the  epistle,  proceeds  to  instruct  him  as 
to  the  qualifications  of  those  to  be  ordained,  with  a  particular 
charge  to  banish  heresy, — '  a  man  that  is  an  heretic  after  the 
first  and  second  admonition,  reject.' " 

When  Mr.  Schuyler  presents  this  as  an  argument  to  show 
that  Titus  was  prelatic  bishop  of  Crete,  if  I  did  not  know  the 
contrary,  I  should  certainly  suppose  him  to  be  indulging  in 
mere  drollery. 

The  first  plea  here  for  the  Cretian  episcopate  of  Titus,  is  the 
extent  and  populousness  of  the  island.  We  reply,  that  the 
labors  of  evangelists  were  never  confined  to  particular  congre- 
gations, but  always  extended  over  entire  regions  and  countries. 

The  second  is  founded  on  the  words  of  Paul, — "  For  this 
cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  I 
had  appointed  thee." 

We  reply,  that  the  words,  "for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,"  even  though  the  word  "  thee  "  had  been  put  in  capitals 
by  Paul  himself,  would  not  upon  any  fair  construction,  be 
equivalent  to, — for  this  cause  I  ordained  thee  bishop  of  Crete;* 
or,  for  this  cause  I  installed  thee  into  the  Cretian  episcopate. 
It  is  very  similar  to  Paul's  beseeching  Timothy  to  "  abide  still 
at  Ephesus."  It  seems  to  me  to  be  the  common  sense  view  of 
this,  to  suppose  that  when  Paul  could  no  longer  remain  in  Crete, 
having  performed  his  apostoHc  work  there,  by  tvitnessi7ig  from, 
personal  knowledge  of  Christy  he  left  Titus  temporarily,  to 
complete  his  unfinished  labors,  in  the  organization  of  churches, 
and  supplying  them  with  pastors,  a  work  which,  according  to 
Eusebius,  evangelists  were  competent  to  perform. 

But  Paul  says, —  "  for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete."  We 
reply,  that  probably  Paul  had  no  one  else  to  leave  there,  or 
knew  of  no  more  suitable  person.     No ;  but  "  for  this  cause  left 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  145 

1  tliee  in  Crete,"  to  do  a  'particular  kind  of  worh,  to  do  my 
work,  to  set  in  order  things  that  are  wanting^  and  to  ordain 
elder^r  Well,  we  reply,  it  was  necessary  that  somebody  should 
do  this  work,  and  if  Paul  could  not  remain  to  do  it  himself, 
w^hy  should  he  not  avail  himself  of  the  presence  of  Titus  there, 
who  was  every  way  a  suitable  person  to  complete  what  the 
apostle  had  begun.  But  how,  Mr.  Schuyler  asks,  could  Titus, 
if  he  was  not  an  apostle,  do  an  apostle's  work  ?  We  reply,  he 
could  not.  He  could  not  testify,  from  personal  knowledge,  of 
Christ.  He  could  not  speak  authoritatively,  as  one  inspired ; 
and  we  do  not  read  that  he  attempted  to  do  either  one  of  these 
things.  Might  he  not,  however,  do  an  evangelist's  work? 
Founding  churches  and  ordaining  pastors  over  them,  were  di- 
rectly in  his  line.  "  Titus  was  St.  Paul's  equal,"  we  are  told, 
"  inasmuch  as  he  was  to  'perfect  the  work  which  St.  Paul  com- 
menced ! "  Admirable !  Apostles,  then,  ne^^er  performed  any 
work  which  could  be  done  by  any  that  were  not  apostles! 
And  if  any  person  followed  in  an  apostle's  track,  and  entered 
into  his  labors,  he  was  himself,  of  necessity,  an  apostle!  Has 
Mr.  Schuyler  anywhere  proved,  that  to  found  churches  and 
ordain  pastors  were  functions  peculiar  to  the  apostolic  office  ? 
Have  not  we  proved  that  they  were  not  ? 

Because  Titus  was  left  in  Crete,  to  "  set  in  order  the  things 
that  remained,  and  to  ordain  elders,  it  follows,  therefore,"  says 
Mr.  S.,  "  that  he  went  there  with  all  the  powers  of  an  apostle." 
If  he  went  there  with  all  the  powers  of  an  apostle,  then  how 
did  Paul's  leaving  him  there  to  do  the  work  described,  malce 
him  bishop  of  Crete  ?  But  will  our  author  pretend  that  he 
had,  either  before  or  after  he  went  to  Crete,  all  the  powers  of 
an  apostle  ?  Had  he  the  power  to  testify  of  Christ  from  per- 
sonal knowledge,  and  to  speak  authoritatively,  the  mind  of 
Christ,  as  one  inspired  ?  It  will  not,  at  least,  be  denied  that 
these  were  powers  of  an  apostle.     Did  Titus  possess  them  ? 

Mr.  Schuyler  finds  a  third  ai-gument  for  the  episcopate  of 
Titus  in  Crete,  in  the  assumed  fact,  that  "to  him  alone  was  the 
8 


146  THE  CHURCH, 

power  to  govern  the  cliurcli  there,  and  ordain  elders  committed." 
I  know  of  no  evidence  that  this  was  a  real  fact,  except  that 
Episcopahans  affirm  it.  Does  the  epistle  contain  any  evidence 
of  it  ?  The  epistle  informs  us  that  Titus  was  to  ordain  elders. 
Does  it  say  that  no  one  was  to  participate  with  him  in  this 
work  ? 

For  a  fuller  reply  to  this  argument,  the  reader  may  turn  hack 
to  what  was  said  in  the  case  of  Timothy. 

But,  fourth.  Titus  received  a  particular  charge  to  banish 
heresy.  Paul  said  to  him,  "A  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after 
the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject."  Therefore  Titus  was 
episcopal  bishop  of  Crete.  To  whom  was  the  first  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  written? — To  a  company  of  episcopal  bishops? 
It  is  commonly  supposed,  that  it  was  written  to  the  Corinthian 
church  with  its  elders.  In  the  fifth  chapter,  a  much  severer 
kind  of  discipline  is  mentioned  than  this  rejection  of  a  heretic, 
and  by  whom  was  it  to  be  administered  ?  At  the  fourth  verse 
we  read,  "  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  when  ye  are 
gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day 
of  the  Lord  Jesus." —  When  who  should  be  gathered  together  ? 
It  is  enough  to  have  alluded  to  this.  Titus'  commission 
against  heretics,  though  it  were  proved,  which  it  can  not  be, 
that  he  had  charge  of  this  matter  alone^  would  not  prove 
him  to  have  been  prelatic  bishop. 

Whether  any  thing  is  made  out  for  the  Cretian  episcopate,  I 
leave  the  reader  to  decide. 

What  is  the  testimony  of  the  fiithers,  in  regard  to  Timothy 
and  Titus?  Not  a  single  authority  can  be  found  in  all  the 
writings  of  the  first  three  centuries,  to  sustain  the  episcopal 
claim.  So  Dr.  Whitby  confesses,  in  his  preface  to  the  epistle 
to  Titus.  Chrysostom,  who  flourished  in  the  fourth  century, 
in  a  passage  quoted  from  him  by  Mocket,  chaplain  to  arch- 
bishop Abbot,  says,  that  the}^  were  evangelists. —  Tractat.  de 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  147 

Politia  Anglicana.  Later  patristic  authorities  are  of  no  avail. 
When  episcopal  usurpations  had  become  the  order  of  the  day, 
it  is  not  remarkable  if  there  were  found  some  to  make  prelates 
of  Timothy  and  Titus,  especially  when  Theodoret  could  make 
one  of  Epaphroditus,  on  the  bare  ground  of  his  being  sent  to 
Paul,  by  the  Phihppians,  with  a  contribution  of  money. 

Admissions  of  Episcopal  writers  are  not  wanting  in  any 
number. 

Bishop  Stilling Jleet  says, —  Irenicum,  page  340, — "They 
were  very  few,  and  those  probably  not  the  ablest,  who  were  left 
at  home  to  take  care  of  the  spoil ;  the  strongest  and  ablest,  like 
commanders  in  an  army,  were  not  settled  in  any  troop,  but 
went  up  and  down,  from  this  company  to  that,  to  order  them 
and  draw  them  forth ;  and  while  they  w^ere,  they  had  the  chief 
authority  among  them,  but  as  commanders  of  the  army,  and 
not  as  officers  of  the  troop.  Such  were  evangelists, —  who 
were  sent  sometimes  into  this  country  to  put  the  churches  in 
order  there,  sometimes  into  another;  but  wherever  they  were, 
they  acted  as  evangelists,  and  not  as  fixed  ojfficers.  And  such 
were  Timothy  and  Titus,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition 
made  to  it,  as  will  appear  to  any  that  will  take  an  impartial 
survey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides." 

Bishop  Bridges,  whom  no  one  w^ill  suspect  of  leaning  to 
Presbyterianism,  in  his  defense  of  the  government  of  the 
church  of  England,  book  i,  page  68,  says,  —  "The  same 
Philip  is  called  an  evangelist;  so  was  Timothie,  2  Tim.  iv:  5. 
Such  was  Titus,  Silas,  and  manie  other.  This  office  also,  with 
the  order  of  the  apostles,  is  expired,  and  hath  no  place.  Like- 
wise, as  wee  doo  plainlie  see,  that  the  gifts  of  healing,  of 
powers  or  miracles,  and  of  diverse  toongs,  have  long  since 
ceased  in  the  church;  so  the  offices  of  them  which  were 
grounded  upon  these  gifts  must  also  cease  and  be  determined." 

Dodwell  —  Paroenes,  sec.  x,  page  404,  says,  —  "  But  truly, 
that  the  office  (of  Timothy)  was  not  fixed,  but  itinerary,  many 
arguments  do  evince.     It  was  required  of   him  to  abide  at 


148  THE  CHURCH, 

Ephesus,  as  is  testified  by  the  apostle  —  1  Tim.  i :  3.  He  was 
therefore,  when  thus  demanded,  an  itinerary.  The  work  of  an 
evangehst,  2  Tim.  iv :  5,  so  many  jom-neyings  with  St.  Paul, 
and  his  name  being  joined  in  common  with  the  apostle,  in  the 
inscriptions  of  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  are  all  of  them 
arguments  for  this.  Moreover,  the  apostle  commands  Titus 
only  to  ordain,  in  Crete,  presbyters  in  every  city  —  Titus  i :  5. 
He  says,  he  was  left  there,  that  he  might  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting,  and  he  was  a  companion  of  the 
apostle  when  he  was  left  there.  And  truly,  other  places  make 
it  appear,  that  he  was  a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  and  therefore 
was  no  more  restricted  to  any  particular  place  than  the  apostle 
himself." 

Willet^  in  the  Synopsis  Papismi,  controversy  5,  quest.  3, 
says  —  "  Neither  can  it  be  granted  by  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  that  Timothy  had  this  sole 
power  in  himself;  for  the  apostle  would  not  give  that  to  him, 
which  he  did  not  take  to  himself,  who  associated  to  him  the 
rest  of  the  presbyters  in  ordaining  Timothy."  In  the  appendix 
to  the  fifth  general  controversy,  question  third,  he  says  —  "  It  is 
most  like  that  Timothie  had  the  place  and  calling  of  an  evan- 
gelist, whose  ofiace  was  to  second  the  apostles  in  their  minis- 
terie,  and  to  water  that  which  the  ap>ostles  had  planted.'''' 

If  any  one  is  inchned  to  suppose  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  bishops,  one  of  Ephesus,  and  the  other  of  Crete,  because 
it  is  so  stated  in  the  postscripts  of  the  epistles  which  were 
addressed  to  them,  it  is  enough  to  say,  what  no  one  will  venture 
to  deny,  that  these  postscripts  form  no  part  of  the  epistles 
themselves,  but  Avere  added  near  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
as  notes,  by  one  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Suica,  in  Egypt.  So 
says  Dr.  Mill ;  and  bishop  Home  declares,  that  whoever  was 
the  author,  he  was  either  grossly  ignorant  or  grossly  inattentive. 

On  the  whole,  the  reader  must,  I  think,  be  satisfied  that  the 
Episcopal  pretension  respecting  Timothy  and  Titus,  is  a  pre- 
tension merely,  unsupported  by  a  shadow  of  sufiicient  evidence. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  149 

Every  argument  that  is  advanced  in  either  case,  is  a  bare 
assumption,  met  by  us,  not  with  assumptions,  but  with  undeni- 
able facts,  and  a  construction  of  scripture  texts  which  can  not 
fail  to  commend  itself  to  every  unprejudiced  mind. 

Mr.  Schuyler,  on  page  sixty-one,  makes  a  quotation  from 
bishop  Hall,  which  1  desire  to  notice  briefly.  Bishop  Hall,  by 
the  way,  was  a  most  enthusiastic  defender  of  the  Ephesian  and 
Cretian  episcopates.  In  his  work  on  "  Episcopacy  by  Divine 
Right,"  book  ii,  page  26,  he  says  —  "I  demand,  what  is  it  that 
is  stood  upon,  but  these  two  particulars,  the  especial  power  of 
ordination,  and  power  of  the  ruling  and  censuring  of  presby- 
ters ;  and  if  these  two  be  not  clear  in  the  charge  of  the  apostle 
to  these  two  bishoj^s,  one  of  Crete,  the  other  of  Ephesus,  I 
shall  yield  the  cause,  and  confess  to  want  my  senses."  So 
confident  was  he,  and  so  much  importance  did  he  attach  to  the 
demonstrableness  of  these  two  episcopates.  He  sympathized, 
I  have  no  doubt,  with  Bilson,  who  says,  —  Perpetual  Govern- 
ment, ch.  xiv,  page  300  —  "This  indeed,  is  the  main  erection 
of  the  episcopal  power  and  function,  if  our  proofes  drawn  from 
these  ministers  stand ;  or  subversion,  if  your  answere  be  good ; 
for  if  this  faile,  well  may  bishops  claime  their  authoritie  by  the 
custome  of  the  church;  hy  any  divine  precept  expressed  in  the 
scriptures.,  they  can  notP     But  let  us  hear  Bishop  Hall : 

"  It  is  a  poor  shift  of  some,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
evangelists,  and  therefore  persons  extraordinary,  and  not,  in 
this  behalf,  capable  of  succession.  Whatever  they  were  in  their 
personal  qualifications,  here  they  stood  for  bishops,  and  they 
received,  as  church  governors,  those  charges  which  were  to  be 
ordinary  and  perpetual  to  all  who  should  succeed  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal administration.  As  to  the  title,  how  will  it  appear  that  they 
were  evangehsts  ?  For  Titus  there  is  no  color ;  he  is  nowhere 
called  an  evangelist.  For  Timothy,  it  is  true,  St.  Paul  charges 
him  to  do  the  work  of  an  evangehst.  What  of  that  ?  What 
is  it  to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  but  to  preach  the  gospel 
of  peace  ?     This  he  might  do,  and  must  do,  as  a  bishop.     And 


150  THE  CHURCH, 

what  propriety  is  there  of  these  enjoined  works  to  an  evangehst, 
as  he  was  an  evangehst  ?  What !  Can  they  show  it  was  the 
office  of  an  evangehst  to  ordain  and  censure?  Nay,  rather, 
how  should  those  works  which  are  constant  and  ordinary,  and 
so  consequently  desirable  to  all  successions,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  be  imposed  upon  a  mere  extraordinary  agent?"  "as," 
Mr.  Schuyler  adds,  "  it  is  admitted  the  evangelists  were  ?  " 

"  As  to  the  title^  how  will  it  appear  that  they  were  evange- 
lists ?  "  It  appears,  we  reply,  from  the  fact  that  they  were  never 
permanently  located,  but  through  the  entire  course  of  their 
ministry,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  them,  were  employed  in  evan- 
gelistic labors,  going  from  place  to  place,  and  doing  the  very 
work,  which,  according  to  all  competent  authorities,  was  the 
proper  work  of  evangelists. 

Dr.  John  Brown  quotes  Barrow  as  saying  —  "  Episcopacy  is 
an  ordinary  standing  charge,  affixed  to  one  place,  and  requiring 
especial  attendance  there ;"  and  adds  —  "  But  evangelists,  as  is 
stated  by  Eusebius,  after  having  founded  or  organized  churches 
in  one  place,  hastened  to  another.  It  is  impossible,  accordingly, 
to  read  what  is  said  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, without  perceiving  that  they  were  evangelists ;  for  they 
had  no  more  any  fixed  charge  than  the  apostles  themselves,  but 
were  constantly  moving  from  place  to  place.  Thus,  it  is  men- 
tioned respecting  Timothy,  that  as  soon  as  he  was  ordained  to 
the  ministry,  Acts  xvi,  he  traveled  with  Paul  through  Phrygia, 
Galatia,  Asia,  and  Mysia,  from  whence  he  came  to  Philippi,  and 
after  remaining  there  for  a  time,  he  was  sent  to  Corinth,  where 
he  preached  to  that  church, —  2  Cor.  i :  1 9, —  and  then  returned 
to  the  apostle.  They  went  together  from  Phijippi  to  Thessa- 
lonica  and  Berea ;  and  Paul  having  proceeded  to  Athens,  Tim- 
othy soon  followed  him,  and  was,  by  and  by,  dispatched  again 
to  Thessalonica,  to  confirm  and  water  the  church  in  that  city. 
Michaelis  thinks,  that  the  apostle  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  him 
when  he  left  him  at  Ephesus,  after  he  himself  was  obliged  to 
leave  it,  Acts  xix,  'to  re-establish  order  in  that  church, —  to 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  151 

fill  the  ecclesiastical  offices,  and  to  oppose  the  false  teachers ;' 
and  he  considers  it  as  evident,  from  what  is  mentioned  in  the 
third  chapter,  that  'no  bishops  had  been  appointed  among 
them.'  This  took  place  when  Timothy  was  very  young,  1  Tim. 
iv:  12, —  or,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  most  eminent 
critics,  when  he  was  about  twenty-six,  or  twenty-seven  years 
of  age,  and  several  years  before  the  last  interview  of  the  apostle 
with  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus,  Acts  xx,  whom  he  addresses 
as  bishops,  verse  twenty-eight,  without  representing  them  as 
under  the  episcopate  of  Timothy.  And  as  nothing  is  said  of 
his  being  the  bishop  of  Ephesus,  or  of  his  being  bound  to  reside 
there,  so  his  stay  there  was  short ;  for  he  accompanied  Paul  to 
Jerusalem,  followed  him  to  Rome, —  Col.  i:  1, —  was  imprisoned 
there,  and  liberated  shortly  before  the  apostle  was  liberated* 
Heb.  iii:  23, —  from  whence  he  proceeded  very  probably  to 
Philippi.  And  the  same  observation  applies  to  Titus,  whose 
residence  in  Crete  appears  to  have  "been  short ;  for  Paul  tells 
him,  ch.  iii :  12,  that  when  he  sent  Tychicus  or  Artemas  to  him, 
he  wished  him  to  come  to  him  at  Nicopolis ;' —  and  he  labored 
also  among  the  churches  in  Macedonia  and  Dalmatia,  as  well  as 
at  Rome  and  Corinth." 

Macknight  says  —  preface  to  2  Tim.  sec.  iii  —  "  After  the 
apostle  left  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  he  went  into  Macedonia  to 
visit  the  churches  there,  according  to  his  promise  —  Phil,  ii :  24 ; 
then  went  to  Nicopolis  in  Epirus,  with  an  intention  to  spend 
the  winter — Tit.  iii:  12  —  and  to  return  to  Ephesus  in  the 
spring — 1  Tim.  iii:  14.  But  having  ordered  Titus  to  come 
to  him  from  Crete  to  Nicopolis,  —  Tit.  iii :  12,  —  on  his  arrival 
he  gave  him  such  an  account  of  the  state  of  the  churches  in 
Crete,  as  determined  him  to  go  with  Titus,  a  second  time,  into 
that  island.  While  in  Crete,  hearing  of  the  cruel  persecution 
which  the  emperor  Nero  was  carr3dng  on  against  the  christians, 
the  apostle  speedily  finished  his  business,  and  sailed  with  Titus 
to  Italy,  in  the  end  of  the  autumn  65."  This,  according  to 
what  Macknight  says,  in  the  preface  to  the  epistle  to  Titus^  was 


152  THE  CHURCH, 

only  about  three  ye^'s  after  Titus  was  first  left  at  Crete,  as 
Episcopalians  tell  us,  the  Episcopal  bishop  of  that  island. 
During-  a  part  of  these  three  years,  he  was  absent,  as  we  knoAv, 
at  Nicopolis ;  and  it  is  nowhere  recorded  in  the  sacred  narra- 
tive, that  he  ever  returned  there  after  going  with  Paul  to 
Rome. 

Now,  when  bishop  Hall  asks,  How  it  appears  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  evangelists  ?  —  we  reply,  among  other  things, 
by  referring  to  their  history,  and  showing  that  their  whole  lives, 
so  far  as  they  can  be  traced  in  the  sacred  narrative,  were  spent 
in  evangelistic  labors !  It  can  not  be  shown,  that  Titus,  in  his 
entire  lifetime,  spent  three  whole  years  on  the  island  of  Crete? 
or  that  Timothy  was  even  for  so  long  a  time  at  Ephesus.  If 
the  scene  of  their  labors  was  constantly  changing,  if  they  were 
always  passing  from  region  to  region,  how  were  they  any  thing 
else  than  evangehsts  ?  To  represent  them  as  Episcopal  bishops, 
one  of  Ephesus  and  the  other  of  Crete,  is  utterly  contradicted 
by  the  facts  of  their  history. 

Bishop  Hall  thinks,  that  the  exhortation  to  Timothy,  to  do 
the  ivork  of  an  evangelist^  implies  nothing.  "  Wliat  of  that  ?  " 
he  says ;  "  What  is  it  to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel  of  peace  ? "  We  reply,  considerably  more. 
The  work  of  an  evangelist  was  to  found  churches  and  to  ordain 
pastors,  as  Eusebius  informs  us,  as  well  as  to  preach  the  gospel. 
Suppose  Paul  had  said,  "  do  the  work  of  an  apostle,  or  of  a  dio- 
cesan bishop,''^  would  not  bishop  Hall  have  thought  that  meant 
something  ?  He  asks,  "  Can  they  show  it  was  the  office  of  an 
evangelist  to  ordain  and  censure  ? "  We  reply,  can  bishop 
Hall,  or  any  other  bishop,  show  that  Timothy  and  Titus  had 
the  powers  of  ordination  and  of  censure  vested  in  themselves 
alone?  Or,  if  they  had,  is  it  strange  that  such  powers  should 
have  appertained  to  an  office  which  was  really  higher  than  that 
of  any  Episcopal  bishop,  and  which  had  associated  with  it  such 
eminent  qualifications  of  grace,  as  no  prelate  in  the  church, 
from  that  day  to  this,  has  evei-,  without  the  grossest  hypocrisy, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  153 

been  able  to  boast  of?  He  thinks  it  incredible  that  "those 
works  which  are  constant  and  ordinary^  and  so  consequently 
desii-able  to  all  successions,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  should  be 
iiuposed  on  a  mere  extraordinary  agent."  He  can  not  under- 
stand, that  the  extraordinary  exigency  of  those  times,  when 
suitable  agents  of  any  kind  were  few,  and  the  church  was  to 
be  i»lanted  throughout  the  world,  created  a  necessity  for  extra- 
ordinary agents.  Is  it  not  a  perfectly  unreasonable  claim  on 
his  part,  that  the  entire  system  of  ecclesiastical  machinery 
should  have  begun  to  move  from  the  very  first,  as  it  was 
intended  that  it  should  move  afterward,  when  the  church  was 
fully  established  ?  There  was  a  clear  necessity,  at  the  begin- 
ning, for  extraordinary  agents  to  do  work  which  was  to  be 
ordinary  and  perpetual  in  the  hands  of  ordinary  ministers  after 
things  should  resolve  themselves  into  their  settled  and  perma- 
nent state.  An  illustration  might  be  borrowed  from  almost 
any  of  our  successful  modern  missions  among  the  heathen. 
But  enough  is  said,  and  I  must  dismiss  this  subject.  I  leave  it, 
feeling  that  not  a  tithe  has  been  said  of  what  might  be,  with 
pertinency  and  power,  against  the  Episcopal  pretension;  yet 
assured  that  enough  has  been  said  to  satisfy  every  impartial 
and  honest  mind,  that  no  evidence  is  found,  either  in  the  case 
of  Timothy  or  Titus,  that  the  apostles  aj^pointed  prelatic 
bishops  over  the  churches. 


WERE  THE  ANGELS  OF  THE  SEVEN  CHURCHES 
OF  ASIA,  PRELATIC    BISHOPS? 

"  We  come  now,"  says  Mr.  Schuyler,  page  seventy-six,  "  to 
notice  briefly,  the  case  of  the  angels  over  the  seven  churches, 
mentioned  in  the  book  of  Revelations,  as  confirming  our  position, 
that  the  apostolic  office,  ivith  its  peculiar  power s<,  was  continued 
in  the  church, 
8* 


154  THE  CHURCH, 

"  And  here  I  would  mention,  that  the  book  of  K.evelations  is 
supposed  to  have  been  written  about  A.  D.  96.  St.  John  was 
the  only  one  of  the  apostles  then  living.  It  must  have  been 
about  thirty  years  after  Timothy  was  appointed  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus.  In  this  book,  Christ,  through  his  servant  John,  addresses 
the  angel  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  Of  the  word  '  angel,'  we 
would  here  remark,  that  its  literal  meaning  is  a  messenger,  and 
as  sanctioned  by  general  use,  a  chief  messenger.  So  with  the 
word  '  apostle,'  and  though  the  words  are  different,  yet  having 
the  same  meaning,  how  natural  the  inference,  that  in  the  pre- 
sent case  they  imply  the  same  office.  But  the  meaning  of  the 
word  is  evident  from  the  context.  Each  of  these  angels  is 
addressed  as  an  officer  of  the  church,  and  is  commanded  or 
censured,  singly,  for  the  condition  of  the  particular  cliurch  over 
which  each  individual  presides.  As  in  the  epistle  to  the  angel 
of  the  church  at  Pergamos,  Christ  declares  — '  I  have  a  few 
things  against  thee,  because  thou  hast  them  there  that  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Balaam,'  <fec.  Here,  then,  we  have  an  individual 
officer  publicly  censured,  and  that,  too,  by  the  great  head  of 
the  church,  for  permitting  heretical  teaching,  as  though  he 
alone  was  responsible  for  this  sin.  Now,  why  is  this,  unless 
this  officer  had  the  supreme  authority  entrusted  to  him  ?  Had 
there  been  at  this  time,  presbyters,  ruling  in  the  churclies, 
would  not  the  address  have  been  made  to  them,  m  their  associ- 
ate capacity  ?  "When  administering  his  censure  for  suffering 
heretics  to  remain  in  the  church,  as  in  the  epistle  to  the  church 
at  Pergamos,  would  not  the  address  have  been  to  the  body  of 
the  elders,  by  their  official  name  ?  But  as  we  have  seen,  this  is 
not  the  case.  There  is  but  one  person  addressed :  '  I  have  a 
few  things  against  thee^  &c.  Again ;  '  So  hast  thou  also  them 
that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanes ; '  and  the  same  mode 
of  address  is  preserved  throughout  all  the  epistles.  But  let  me 
call  your  attention  particularly  to  what  is  said  to  the  angel  of 
Ephesus.  In  our  last  discourse,  we  proved  (!)  to  you  that 
Timothy  was  placed  over  this  church  with  authority  superior  to 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  155 

that  of  presbyters  —  that  he  was  to  rule  and  govern  the  church, 
and  administer  disciphne  as  well  upon  elders  as  private  mem- 
bers. At  that  time,  there  were  many  elders  at  Ephesus,  as  is 
evident  from  the  gospel  history ;  and  as  Christianity  spread  with 
astonisliing  rapidity,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  there  must 
have  been  a  great  multitude  of  behevers  in  the  large  city  of 
Ephesus,  and  many  churches,  with  their  respective  ministers, 
after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years.  Yet  we  find  the  epistle  directed 
to  the  angel  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  just  as  St.  Paul  ad- 
dressed his  epistle  to  Timothy.  And  with  what  powers. do  we 
find  this  officer  or  angel,  invested?  with  the  same  powers 
entrusted  tD  Timothy.  Christ  especially  commends  him,  for 
having  enforced  his  authority  in  exercising  discipline  upon 
those,  who,  it  would  seem,  had  claimed  to  be  apostles,  without 
any  proper  warrant;  thus  clearly  proving,  that  he^  i.  e.  the 
angel  at  Ephesus,  was  an  apostle,  and  that  there  were  still  true 
apostles  in  the  church ;  for  had  not  he  been  an  apostle,  he 
would  have  had  no  authority  to  try  their  claims;  and  had 
there  not  been  true  apostles,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity 
for  instituting  proceedings  to  detect  the  false.  These  are  the 
words  of  the  address  to  the  angel  at  Ephesus :  '  I  know  thy 
works  and  labor,  and  thy  patience,  and  how  thou  canst  not  bear 
them  which  are  evil,  and  thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they 
are  apostles  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  hars.'  Here, 
then,  is  an  officer  above  all  other  ministers,  occupying  the  po- 
sition, and  exerting  the  same  authority  over  the  churches  in 
Ephesus,  which  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church  do  in  their 
respective  dioceses.  Who,  then,  can  doubt,  that  the  angel  here 
addressed,  was  the  bishop  of  the  church  ?  And  in  confirmation 
of  this  position,  we  quote  the  learned  ecclesiastical  historian, 
Mosheim,  and  who,  we  would  remark,  is  not  an  Episcopalian. 
He  says,  (Vidal's  Translation,  Com.  on  first  three  centuries,  pp. 
227,  228,)  —  'In  support  of  this  opinion,  that  episcopacy  was 
established  during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  and  with  their 
approbation,  we  are  supplied  with  an  aigument  of  such  strength, 


156  THE  CHURCH, 

in  those  angels  to  whom  St.  John  addressed  the  epistles,  which, 
by  the  command  of  our  Saviour  himself,  he  sent  to  the  seven 
churches  in  Asia,  as  the  Presbyterians,  as  they  are  termed,  let 
them  labor  and  strive  as  they  may,  will  never  be  able  to  overcome. 
It  must  be  evident  to  every  one,  even  on  a  cursory  perusal  of  the 
epistles  to  which  we  refer,  that  those  who  are  therein  termed 
angels,  were  persons  possessing  such  a  degree  of  authority  in 
their  respective  churches,  as  enabled  them  to  mark  with  merited 
disgrace,  whatever  might  appear  to  be  deserving  of  reprehen- 
sion; and  also  to  give  due  countenance  and  encouragement  to 
every  thing  that  was  virtuous  and  commendable.'  In  addition 
to  this,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  who  was  conversant 
with  the  apostles,  and  ordained  by  one  of  them,  bishop  of  An- 
tioch,  that  after  Timothy,  Onesimus  Avas  bishop  of  Ephesus, 
and  was  probably  the  angel  to  whom  the  epistle  was  addressed." 

Before  replying  to  Mr.  Schuyler's  reasoning  in  this  passage, 
I  have  something  to  say  in  regard  to  the  two  authorities  with 
which  he  closes  it.  The  testimony  of  Ignatius  amounts  to 
nothing ;  for  the  only  rational  supposition  is,  that  he  uses  the 
term  "  bishop  "  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  admitted  the  apostles 
used  it.  Theodoret,  in  the  fourth  century,  speaks  of  a  change 
in  the  manner  of  employing  this  word,  which  had  been  grad- 
ually introduced  after  the  days  of  the  apostles.  He  says,  "  in 
process  of  time,  the  name  '  apostle  '  was  left  to  those  who  were 
truly  apostles ;  and  the  name  of  bishop  restrained  to  those  who 
were  anciently  called  apostles."  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
Ignatius,  who,  our  author  says,  was  "  conversant  with  the  apos- 
tles, and  ordained  by  one  of  them,  bishop  of  Antioch,"  employed 
the  term  "  bishop,"  not  in  its  modern,  but  in  its  primitive  and 
scriptural  sense.  We  may  judge,  also,  what  kind  of  a  bishop 
he  himself  was  made  at  Antioch  —  not  a  diocesan  prelate,  but 
a  simple  pastor. 

The  testimony  from  Mosheim,  quoted  by  bishop  Ravenscroft, 
from  Vidal's  Translation,  is  something  new.  I  own  that  I 
have  never  read   Mosheim  in  the   original   Latin,  but   I  am 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  157 

familiar  with  the  two  best,  and  I  believe  only  English  transla- 
tions that  have  ever  been  made, — Maclaine's  and  Murdock's, — ■ 
and  the  passage  cited  is  as  strange  to  me  as  though  it  had  been 
quoted  from  a  work  written  yesterday.  Neither  Murdoch  nor 
Maclaine  have  any  thing  to  which  it  bears  even  a  resemblance ; 
and  I  have  no  sort  of  hesitation  in  pronouncing  it  a  forgery. 
That  Mosheim  could  not  have  been  the  author  of  it,  I  will 
prove  by  quotations  from  Murdock,  showing  that  he  did  not 
believe  what  is  here  ascribed  to  him. 

Book  I,  Century  1,  Part  2,  chap,  ii,  sec.  2, — "In  this 
manner,  christians  managed  ecclesiastical  affairs  so  long  as  their 
congregations  were  small,  or  not  very  numerous.  Three  or 
four  presbyters,  men  of  gravity  and  holiness,  placed  over  those 
little- societies,  could  easily  proceed  with  harmony,  and  needed 
no  head  or  president.  But  when  the  churches  became  larger, 
and  the  number  of  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  well  as  the 
amount  of  duties  to  be  performed,  was  increased,  it  became 
necessary  that  the  council  of  presbyters  should  have  a  president^ 
a  man  of  distinguished  gravity  and  prudence,  who  should  dis- 
tribute among  his  colleagues  their  several  tasks,  and  be  as  it 
were  the  central  point  of  the  whole  society.  He  was,  at  first, 
denominated  the  angel^  (Rev.  ii  and  iii,);  but  afterward  the 
bishop  —  a  title  of  Grecian  derivation,  and  indicative  of  his 
principal  business.  It  would  seem  that  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem^ when  grown  very  numerous,  after  the  dispersion  of  the 
apostles  among  foreign  nations,  was  the  first  to  elect  such  a 
president^  and  that  other  churches  in  process  of  time  followed 
the  example." 

Sec.  12. — "But  whoever  supposes  that  the  bishops  of  this 
first  and  golden  age  of  the  church,  corresponded  with  the 
bishops  of  the  following  centuries,  must  blend  and  confound 
characters  that  are  very  difterent.  For  in  this  century  and  the 
next,  a  bishop  had  charge  of  a  single  church,  which  might 
ordinarily  be  contained  in  a  private  house ;  nor  was  he  its  lord^ 
but  was  in  reality  its  minister  or  servant;  he  instructed  the 


158  THE   CHURCH, 

people,  conducted  all  parts  of  public  worship,  attended  on  the 
sick  and  necessitous  in  person,  and  what  he  was  unable  thus  to 
perform,  he  committed  to  the  care  of .  the  presbyters ;  but  was 
without  power  to  ordain,  or  to  determine  any  thing,  except 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  presbyters  and  the  brotherhood." 

If  Mosheim  wrote  this,  will  the  reader  believe  that  he  ever 
^vi'ote  the  passage  quoted  upon  the  authority  of  bishop  Ravens- 
croft,  from  Vidal  ? 

What  does  he  say  in  the  two  sections  which  I  have  just 
given  from  him  ?     The  following  things : 

First.  That  in  the  beginning,  the  ministry  of  each  church 
was  committed  exclusively  to  three  or  four  presbyters. 

Second.  That  in  process  of  time,  as  the  churches  grew,  it 
became  necessary  that  one  should  assume  a  presideyicy  over  the 
rest,  and  have  the  sole  charge  of  public  worship,  &c.,  &  c. ;  — 
precisely  as  is  now  the  case  in  every  Presbyterian  church,  where 
the  pastor  is  president  of  a  board  of  elders. 

Third.  That  this  president  of  the  board  of  elders  was  at  first 
called  the  angel  of  the  church,  (as  in  Rev.  ii  and  iii),  and 
afterward  bishop. 

Fourth.  That  during  the  first  two  centuries  a  bishop  had 
charge  only  of  a  single  church,  which  might  ordinarily  be  con- 
tained in  a  private  house.     And 

Fifth.  That  he  was  nothing  more  than  a  presbyterian  pastor, 
with  no  power  to  ordain,  or  to  determine  any  thing  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  presbyters  and  the  brotherhood. 

In  regard  to  the  angels  of  the  churches,  Mosheim  aflSmis 
precisely  what  we  believe :  that  they  were  the  presiding  oflScers, 
or  pastors,  as  unlike  a  modern  diocesan  bishop  as  they  were 
unlike  a  Romish  cardinal  or  a  pope.     Mosheim  continues. 

Sec.  13. — "It  was  not  long,  however,  (that  is,  after  the  first 
two  centuries,)  before  the  extent  of  episcopal  jurisdiction  and 
power  was  enlarged,  for  the  bishops  who  lived  in  the  cities, 
either  by  their  own  labors,  or  by  those  of  their  presbyters, 
gathered  new  churches  in  the  neighboring  villages  and  hamlets : 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  159 

aucl  these  churches  continuing  under  the  protection  and  care  of 
the  bishops,  (i'.  e.  pastors,)  by  whose  ministry  or  procurement, 
they  had  received  Christianity,  ecclesiastical  provinces  were 
gradually  formed,  v^diich  the  Greeks  afterward  denominated 
dioceses.  The  persons  to  whom  the  city  bishops  (or  pastors) 
committed  the  government  and  instruction  of  these  village  and 
rural  churches,  were  called  rural  bishojJS  or  chorepiscopi^  that 
is,  bishops  of  the  suburbs  and  fields,  They  were  an  interme- 
diate class  between  the  bishops  (or  pastors)  and  the  presbyters ; 
being  inferior  to  the  former,  because  subject  to  them,  and  supe- 
rior to  the  latter,  because  intrusted  with  discretionary  and 
permanent  power,  and  performing  nearly  all  the  functions  of 
bishops." 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  term  presbyter  or  elder  is 
applied  here  by  Mosheim,  to  those  associated  with  the  pastor, 
not  in  the  performance  of  ministerial  functions,  but  in  the 
government  of  the  church  merely. 

The  fact  which  this  historian  states,  in  regard  to  tlie  first 
insidious  advances  toward  diocesan  episcopacy,  which  began 
after  the  close  of  the  second  century,  is  in  precise  accordance 
with  our  own  imderstanding  of  this  subject.  It  was  most 
natural  that  things  should  take  that  course,  and  most  natural, 
also,  that  the  influence  and  power  thus  acquired  by  the  city 
pastors  should  lead  as  they  did  eventually,  to  farther  results  in 
the  same  direction. 

Mosheim,  on  Century  II,  Part  2,  chapter  ii,  sec.  1,  says  as 
follows : 

"  The  form  of  church  government  which  began  to  exist  in 
the  preceding  century  was  more  industriously  established  and 
confirmed  in  all  its  parts.  One  president  or  bishop  {i.  e.  pastor) 
presided  over  each  church.  He  was  created  by  the  common 
suffrage  of  the  whole  people.  With  the  presbyters  {i.  e.  the 
ruling  elders)  for  his  council,  whose  number  was  not  fixed ;  it 
was  his  business  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  the  whole  church, 
and  to  assign  to  each  presbyter  his  station.     (Let  it  be  observed, 


160  THE  CHtTRCH, 

this  was  in  a  single  church,  or  congregation.)  Subject  to  the 
bishop  (or  pastor)  and  also  to  the  presbyters,  were  the  servants 
or  deaconsy 

A  more  exact  account  of  the  organization  of  a  presbyterian 
church  could  not  be  written. 

Section  2.  —  "  During  a  great  part  of  this  century,  all  the 
churches  continued  to  be,  as  at  first,  independent  of  each  other ; 
or  were  connected  by  no  consociations  or  confederations.  Each 
church  was  a  kind  of  small,  independent  republic,  governing 
itself  by  its  own  laws,  enacted,  or  at  least  sanctioned  by  the 
people.  But,  in  process  of  time,  it  became  customary  for  all 
the  christian  churches  within  the  same  pro^^nce,  to  unite  and 
form  a  sort  of  larger  society  or  commonwealth ;  and  in  the 
manner  of  confederated  republics,  to  hold  conventions  at  stated 
times,  and  there  deliberate  for  the  common  advantage  of  the 
whole  confederation." 

Let  Mosheim  speak  again  on  century  iii, —  Part  2,  ch.  ii,  sec. 
3,  —  "Yet,  while  the  ancient  mode  of  church  government 
seemed  in  general  to  remain  unaltered,  there  was  a  gi-adual 
deflection  from  its  rules,  and  an  approximation  toward  the  form 
of  a  monarchy.  For  the  bishop  claimed  much  higher  authority 
and  power  than  before,  and  encroached  more  and  more  upon 
the  rights,  not  only  of  the  brotherhood,  but  also  of  the  presby- 
ters, and  to  give  plausibility  to  these  usurpations,  they  advanced 
new  doctrines  concerning  the  church  and  the  episcopal  ofiice ; 
which,  however,  were  so  obscure  for  the  most  paii,  that  it 
would  seem  they  did  not  themselves  understand  them.  The 
principal  author  of  these  innovations  was  Cyprian,  the  most 
bold  and  strenuous  defender  of  Episcopal  power  that  had  then 
arisen  in  the  church.  Yet  he  was  not  uniform  and  consistent ; 
for  in  times  of  difficulty,  when  urged  by  necessity,  he  could 
give  up  his  pretensions,  and  submit  every  thing  to  the  judgment 
and  authority  of  the  church." 

Sec.  4.  —  "  This  change  in  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, was  followed   by  a   coiTupt   state   of  the   clergy;   for 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  161 

although  examples  of  primitive  piety  and  virtue  were  not 
wanting,  yet  many  were  addicted  to  dissipation,  arrogance, 
voluptuousness,  contention,  and  other  vices,"  &c.  &c. 

There  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  during  the  first 
two  centuries,  the  term  "  bishop "  was  used  in  the  scriptural 
sense  exactly,  and  that  bishops  were  simply  pastors  of  single 
churches.  They  were  presbyter  pastors,  chosen  by  the  people? 
having  the  exclusive  power  and  right  to  conduct  public  wor- 
ship, and  administer  the  sacraments,  but  associated,  in  the 
government  of  the  churches,  with  a  board  of  presbyters. 

If  Mr.  Schuyler  had  ever  read  Mosheim,  I  think  he  could 
not  have  so  imposed  upon  himself  as  to  offer  us  this  passage, 
quoted  by  bishop  Ravenscroft  from  Vidal,  for  a  veritable  pas- 
sage from  that  author.  Why  does  he  make  a  second-hand 
quotation  from  an  obscure  and  inaccessible  writer,  probably  a 
French  Papist,  when  he  might  so  easily  quote,  for  himself, 
from  Murdock,  or  Maclaine,  either  of  whom  is  well  accredited 
as  a  reliable  translator  ? 

But  now  for  the  main  subject  under  present  debate.  We 
affirm,  that  the  angels  of  the  churches  were  simply,  according 
to  Mosheim's  statement  of  the  use  of  the  term  "  angel,"  pastors, 
and  nothing Hnore ;  bishops  in  the  scriptural  sense,  of  single 
congregations ;  as  unlike  modern  diocesan  bishops  as  they  well 
could  be. 

Our  arguments,  direct  and  negative,  are  the  following: 

First.  We  reason  from  the  source  from  whence  the  term 
"  angel  "  was  derived.  Let  Dr.  Lightfoot,  an  Episcopalian,  and 
a  man  who,  it  will  be  confessed,  had  few  equals  in  scrij^tural 
knowledge  and  Jewish  learning,  speak  for  us,  on  this  point.  I 
quote  from  volume  ii,  of  his  works,  page  133,  —  "  Besides  these 
(the  three  rulers  of  the  synagogue)  there  was  the  public  minis- 
ter of  the  synagogue,  Avho  prayed  publicly,  and  took  care  about 
the  reading  of  the  law,  and  sometimes  preached,  if  there  were 
not  others  to  discharge  that  office.  This  person  was  called 
Sheliach  Zibbor,  the  angel  of  the  churchy  and  the  (Jhazav  or 


162  THE  CHURCH, 

bishop  of  tlie  congregation.  Certainly  the  signification  of  tlie 
word  bishop,  or  angel  of  the  church,  had  been  determined  with 
less  noise,  if  recourse  had  been  made  to  the  proper  fountains, 
and  men  had  not  vainly  disputed  about  the  meaning  of  words, 
taken  I  know  not  whence.  The  service  and  worship  of  the 
temple  being  abolished,  as  being  ceremonial,  God  transplanted 
the  worship  and  public  adoration  of  God  used  in  the  synagogues, 
which  was  moral,  into  the  christian  church ;  to  wit,  the  pubhc 
ministry,  public  prayers,  reading  of  God's  word,  and  preach- 
ing, &c.  Hence  the  names  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  were 
the  very  same^  the  angel  of  the  churchy  and  the  bishop^  which 
belonged  to  the  ministers  in  the  synagogues^ 

Be  it  observed,  the  Sheliach  Zibbor,  angel,  or  bishop  of  the 
synagogue,  was  simply  the  president  of  the  synagogue  to  which 
he  was  attached,  having  no  authority  beyond  its  particular 
limits,  associated,  in  the  general  government  of  that  synagogue, 
with  three  other  rulers.  Not  only,  therefore,  is  no  proof 
obtained,  that  the  term  a,ngel  was  applied  in  the  christian 
church  to  an  officer  having  authority  over  many  congregations 
and  their  ministers ;  but  the  whole  proof  from  the  origin  of 
the  title  is,  that  it  was  applied  to  the  pastor  of  a  single  con- 
gregation, associated  in  the  government  of  the  same  with 
others.  Says  Dr.  John  Dick,  vol.  ii,  page  471 — "It  (angel) 
is  a  name  not  of  order,  but  of  office,  which  w^as  given  by 
the  Jews  to  the  president  of  their  synagogues,  and  chiefly 
for  this  reason,  that  he  offered  up  prayers  to  God  in  the  name 
of  the  assembly.  This  being  known  to  be  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  was  understood  by  the  Jews,  John,  who  was  himself 
a  Jew,  naturally  apphed  it  to  the  president  of  a  christian 
church,  or  the  minister  who  officiated  in  holy  things,  and  acted 
as  intercessor  with  God  for  the  people.  The  utmost  which  can 
be  fairly  inferred  is,  that  in  each  of  the  Asiatic  churches  there 
was  a  person  who  held  the  first  place.  But  Episcopahans  can 
derive  no  advantage  from  this  circumstance,  because  Presby- 
terians hold,  that  in  every  congregation  there  is,  or  ought  to  be, 


ITS  MmiSTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  163 

one  person  at  least  who  is  superior  to  the  rest,  and  to  whom  it 
pertains  to  conduct  the  pubhc  offices  of  rehgion." 

The  learned  Origen,  A.  D.  230,  —  De  Orat.,  sec.  34  — 
affirms,  that  the  angels  of  the  churches  were  the  presiding 
presbyters  [proestotes)  and  the  same  opinion,  according  to 
Coleman  —  see  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,  page  159  — 
was  expressed  before  him,  by  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and 
Clemens  Alexandrinus. 

What  Mr.  Schuyler  says  of  the  primary  sense  of  the  word 
"  angel "  is  true  enough.  But  why  did  he  not  tell  us  how  it 
came  to  be  applied  as  it  is  in  the  epistles  on  which  his  present 
argument  is  founded  ?  Did  he  not  know  that  the  true  way  to 
ascertain  its  meaning  in  these  places,  is  to  inquire  what  import 
the  word  had  as  a  title,  or  name  of  office  among  the  Jews  ? 
If  he  knew  how  the  word  came  to  be  used  by  John,  was  it 
honest  in  him  to  withhold  the  facts,  and  content  himself  with 
the  bald  statement,  that  "  its  literal  meaning  is  messenger,  and, 
as  sanctioned  by  general  use,  a  chief  messenger  ? " 

Second.  It  can  not  be  shown  that  the  churches  to  which  these 
angels  ministered  were  not  single  believing  congregations. 

Our  author,  having  nothing  in  view  but  the  making  out  of  a 
case,  displays  a  boldness  of  assumption  to  which  few  men 
would  be  equal.  He  says  —  "  At  that  time,  (that  is,  when 
Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus)  there  were  many  elders  at 
Ephesus,  as  is  e\ddent  from  the  gospel  history ;  and  as  Chris- 
tianity spread  with  astonishing  rapidity,  in  the  early  ages  of 
the  church,  there  must  have  been  a  great  multitude  of  believers 
in  the  large  city  of  Ephesus,  and  many  churches,  with  their 
respective  ministers,  after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years." 

The  reader  perceives  that  this  is  a  mere  fancy. — "  There 
must  have  heenf'*  Is  our  author  to  build  an  argument,  and 
prove  his  case,  on  a  mere  supposition?  What  is  the/ac^.^  Is 
it  known  that  there  were  "  many  churches,  with  their  respective 
ministers,"  at  Ephesus,  at  the  time  these  messages  were  sent  ? 
We  do  not  want  guesses,  but  proof.     That  there  were  many 


164  THE  CHURCH, 

elders  there,  is  not  such  proof  as  we  requii'e.  This  does  not 
estabhsh  the  fact  that  there  were  many  churches;  for  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  Mosheim,  there  was  always  an  indefinite 
plurality  of  elders  in  one  church ;  and  at  first,  until  the  necessity 
arose,  on  account  of  the  growing  number  of  believers,  they  per- 
formed the  whole  work  of  the  ministry  in  common.  I  do  not 
myself  suppose,  that  the  distinction  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders 
existed  at  the  very  first  establishment  of  that  order  in  the 
church,  but  the  evidence  is  irresistible,  that  it  grew  up  under 
the  eye  of  the  apostles,  and  was  approved  of,  and  confirmed  by 
them.  The  term  hkliop  was  originally  apphed  to  all  elders; 
but  in  the  very  time  of  the  apostles  it  came  to  be  applied,  in 
each  church,  to  that  elder  who  was  chosen  by  the  people  to  act 
as  'president^  and  to  perform,  in  a  special  manner,  the  duties  of 
the  pastoral  oflSce.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  there  were  many 
elders  in  the  church  of  Ephesus  long  after  the  first  epistle  to 
Timothy  was  written ;  and  Paul,  in  addressing  them,  calls  them 
all  bishops;  but  this  is  as  far  from  proving  that  there  were 
many  churches,  or  that  these  elders  were  ministers  of  dififerent 
congregations,  as  it  is  from  proving  that  there  were  many  dio- 
ceses and  many  prelates.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  in  the 
very  first  instance  each  church  was  organized  and  furnished 
with  a  ministry,  precisely  as  it  was  intended  it  should  be  after- 
ward. Qualified  persons,  to  assume  the  presidency  or  pastoral 
charge  of  the  churches,  at  the  first,  were  not  always  to  be  found, 
and  it  was,  therefore,  in  this  respect,  a  matter  of  necessity  that 
this  perfection  of  order  should  be  waited  for,  until  such  time  as 
it  could  be  supplied. 

Dr.  Snodgrass,  in  his  work  on  "Apostolical  Succession,"  page 
166,  says,  "Erroneous  opinions,  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  these 
ancient  churches,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  much  of  the  false 
reasoning  which  occurs  in  support  of  prelacy.  And  for  the 
purpose  of  setting  this  matter  before  you  in  its  true  light,  I  ask 
your  attention  to  the  testimony  of  one,  who  was  qualified  to 
judge,  and  who  will  not  be  suspected  of  a  disposition  to  crowd 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  165 

Episcopacy  out  of  its  proper  place.  I  refer  to  sir  Peter  King, 
nephew  of  the  celebrated.  Mr.  Locke,  and  lord  high  chancellor 
of  England.  As  the  result  of  his  careful  inquiry  into  the  con- 
stitution, &c.,  of  the  church  for  the  first  three  hundred  years, 
he  confesses  there  was,  then,  'but  ore  bishop  to  a  church,'  and 
'  but  one  church  to  a  bishop ; '  and  that  *  the  bishop's  cure  was 
never  called  a  diocese ;  but  was  usually  a  parish  no  larger  than 
our  parishes.'  In  regard  to  Ephesus,  in  particular,  he  says,  — 
'  as  for  the  diocese  of  Ephesus,  there  was  but  one  altar,  or  cc  m- 
munion  table,  in  its  whole  territory,  at  which  they  all  commu- 
nicated together ;  whence  they  are  said  to  break  one  bread.'  — 
'  The  members  of  this  church  could  also  meet  together  in  one 
place,  to  send  up  their  joint  prayers  to  God  in  Christ:  and 
therefore  Ignatius  condemns  all  those  of  that  diocese,  who  did 
not  assemble  together  in  that  one  place  with  the  rest  of  the 
members  thereof;  to  send  up  their  prayers  to  God.'  '  So  that, 
if  to  communicate  together,  and  to  pray  together,  be  the  marks 
of  a  particular  church,  then  this  bishopric  was  one.'  He  takes 
the  same  ground  in  regard  to  the  churches  at  Smyrna,  at 
Philadelphia,  &c. ;  and  his  opinion  is  corroborated  by  other 
respectable  authorities,  which  we  might  adduce." 

If  Mr.  Schuyler  desires  to  prove  that  the  "  angel  of  the 
church  at  Ephesus,"  was  a  prelatic  bishop,  it  is  indispensable 
that  he  should  prove^  and  not  suppose,  that  the  church  at 
Ephesus  was  composed  of  many  distinct  congregations  with 
their  several  ministers.  He  can  neither  prove  it,  nor  show 
such  evidence  as  may  serve  for  the  ground  of  a  rational 
presumption. 

It  may  be  observed  that  it  is  only  in  the  case  of  the  Ephe- 
sian  church  that  there  is  even  a  pretext  for  setting  up  this 
claim ;  and  the  pretext  in  this  instance  is  palpably  insufficient. 

Third.  Suppose  it  should  be  conceded  that  there  were 
many  churches  in  Ephesus,  with  their  several  pastors,  and  that 
the  same  was  true  of  Loadicea,  Pergamos,  Thyatira,  Sardis, 
Philadelphia,  and  Smyrna, —  what  then  ?     Does  it  foUow,  that 


166  THE   CHURCH, 

the  angel  addressed,  was  bishop  over  them  all  ?  or,  may  we 
conclude,  that  under  the  general  denomination  of  "  the  angel," 
each  pastor  was  addressed  alike  ?  Are  we,  of  necessity,  to  sup- 
pose that  "  the  angel "  represents,  absolutely,  one  person^  and 
no  more  ?  Then  I  reply,  it  becomes  impossible  to  concede  that 
there  was  in  each  city  a  plurality  of  congregations, —  for  the 
necessity  is  just  the  same  of  supposing  that  each  candlestick  is 
one  church,  as  of  supposing  that  each  star^  or  angel,  is  one 
person.  Ch.  i:  20, —  "The  mystery  of  the  seven  stars  which 
thou  sawest  in  my  right  hand,  and  the  seven  golden  candle- 
sticks. The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches, 
and  the  seven  candlesticks  which  thou  sawest,  are  the  seven 
churches,"  Now  we  insist,  and  we  have  a  manifest  right  to 
insist,  that  if  each  star,  or  angel  was  one  person,  each  candle- 
stick was  one  church.  If  all  the  congregations  in  any  city, 
supposing  that  there  were  more  than  one,  might  be  represented 
by  a  single  candlestick,  who  can  show  a  reason  why  all  the 
pastors  might  not  be  represented  by  a  single  star,  and  why  they 
might  not  be  addressed  collectively,  under  one  symbohc  term  ? 
We  need  not  be  told,  that  by  our  own  admission,  the  term 
"  angel "  was  in  common  use,  as  applicable  to  a  single  person ; 
that  does  not,  in  the  least,  forbid  the  idea  that  it  might  be  used 
symbolically,  to  represent  any  number  of  persons  holding  the 
office  which  the  term,  in  its  ordinary  use,  indicates.  In  the 
fourteenth  chapter  of  Revelations,  at  the  sixth  verse,  John 
says,  — "  And  I  saw  another  angel  flying  in  the  midst  of 
heaven,  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  unto  them  that 
dwell  on  the  earth,"  &c.  Here  the  word  "  angel "  is  evidently 
used  symbolically,  and  not  to  represent  a  few,  but  all  Christ's 
ministers  throughout  the  whole  world. 

That  the  term  "  angel  "  in  the  messages  to  the  seven  churches 
is  used  symbolically,  to  represent  a  plurality  of  persons,  is  the 
opinion  of  some  of  the  ablest  and  most  learned  men  that  have 
ever  written.  Among  Episcopalians  themselves,  there  may  be 
given  the  names  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Henry  More,  Joseph  Mede, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  167 

Dr.  Fulk,  and  bisliop  Stillinglieet.  The  latter  author,  in  his 
Irenicum,  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Mason,  as  saying, —  If,  in  the  pro- 
phetic style,  any  unity  may  be  set  down  by  way  of  representa- 
tion of  a  multitude,  what  evidence  can  be  brought  from  the 
name^  that  by  it  some  one  particular  person  must  be  under- 
stood ? "  A  Httle  further  on,  he  says,  "  If  many  things  in  the 
epistles  be  direct  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the 
whole  body,  then  of  necessity,  the  angel  must  be  taken  as  a 
representative  of  the  whole  body ;  and  then,  why  may  not  the 
word  '  angel '  be  taken  by  way  of  representation  of  the  body 
itself,  either  of  the  whole  church,  or,  which  is  far  more  pro- 
bable, of  the  concessus,  or  order  of  presbyters  in  that  church  ? 
We  see  what  miserable,  unaccountable  arguments  those  are, 
which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government  from  meta- 
phorical or  ambiguous  expressions,  or  names  promiscuously 
used." 

Fourth.  The  terms  in  which  the  angels  are  addressed,  instead 
of  proving  that  they  were  prelatic  bishops,  are  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  the  view  of  theii:  office  held  by  us.  If  the  term 
"•  angels,"  in  the  messages,  is  used  symbolically  for  many  pastors, 
then  of  course,  according  to  the  rules  of  symbolization,  they  are 
all  addressed  as  one,  and  we  are  to  look  for  nothing  in  the 
terms  employed  that  shall  violate  the  conditions  of  the  symbolic 
unity ;  so  that  whether  we  adopt  the  idea,  that  in  each  of  the 
seven  cities,  there  was  but  one  church,  with  its  president,  who 
was  addressed  literally,  or  that  in  each  city  there  were  many 
churches  with  their  several  presidents,  who  were  all  addressed 
under  the  form  of  a  symbolic  one,  the  case,  so  far  as  the  pre- 
sent inquiry  is  concerned,  remains  the  same;  and  the  simple 
question  that  presents  itself  is  this,  —  Is  there  any  thing  in 
either  of  the  messages  to  the  angels  that  necessarily  implies 
diocesan  and  prelatic  authority,  in  the  person  addressed  ?  Or, 
to  adopt  another  form  of  the  inquiry, —  Is  there  any  thing  in 
either  of  these  messages  that  would  be  inappropriate,  if  addressed 
to  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation  ? 


168  THE  CHURCH, 

Let  those  things  be  fixed  upon  for  the  test  of  this  matter, 
which  Mr.  Schuyler  has  chosen,  as  clearly  sustaining  his  side  of 
the  question.  To  the  angel  of  the  church  at  Pergamos,  Christ 
■says, —  "  I  have  a  few  things  against  thee,  because  thou  hast 
them  there  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,"  &c.  On  this,  our 
author  remarks, — "  Here  then  we  have  an  individual  officer  pub- 
licly censured,  and  that,  too,  by  the  great  head  of  the  church, 
for  permitting  heretical  teaching,  as  though  he  alone  were 
responsible  for  that  sin.  Now  why  is  this,  unless  this  officer 
had  the  supreme  authority  entrusted  to  him  ?  Had  there  been 
at  this  time  presbyters,  ruling  in  the  churches,  would  not  the 
address  have  been  made  to  them,  in  their  associate  capacity  ? " 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  our  author 
assumes  that  the  persons  in  the  chm-ch  at  Pergamos  holding 
the  doctrine  of  Balaam,  are  ministers,  preaching  that  doctrine. 
The  text  says  "  holding  "  the  doctrine  of  Balaam.  Might  I  not 
be  personally  reproved,  as  president  of  my  church,  for  allowing 
persons  to  remain  in  it,  who  should  be  found  holding  pernicious 
doctrines  ?  What  is  there  in  this  message  to  the  angel  of  the 
church  at  Pergamos  that  indicates  any  higher  j^ower  or  respon- 
sibility attaching  to  his  office,  than  attaches  to  the  office  of 
every  Presbyterian  pastor  ?  "/So  hast  thou  also  them  that  hold 
the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanesr — The  reader  will  observe, 
that  in  every  instance,  in  which  the  angel  is  reproved  for  not 
excluding  heretics,  the  language  employed,  is  such  as  to  suggest 
the  idea,  not  of  heretical  ministers,  but  of  heretical  church- 
members. 

Our  author's  next  example,  of  what  he  supposes  indicates 
prelatic  power  in  these  angels,  is  taken  from  the  message  to  the 
angel  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  He  says,  "  Christ  specially 
commends  him  for  having  enforced  his  authority  in  exercising 
discipline  upon  those,  who,  it  would  seem,  had  claimed  to  be 
apostles,  without  any  proper  warrant ;  thus  clearly  proving  that 
he,  that  is  the  angel  at  Ephesus,  was  an  apostle,  and  that  there 
were  still  true  apostles  in  the  church,  for  had  he  not  been  an 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  169 

apostle,  lie  would  have  had  no  authority  to  try  their  claims ; 
and  had  there  not  been  true  apostles,  there  would  have  been  no 
necessity  for  instituting  proceedings  to  detect  the,  false.  These 
are  the  words  of  the  address  to  the  angel  of  Ephesus  — '  I 
know  thy  works  and  labor,  and  thy  patience,  and  how  thou 
canst  not  bear  them  which  are  evil,  and  thou  hast  tried  them 
which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them 
liars.'  Here,  then,  is  an  officer  above  all  other  ministers,  occu- 
pying the  position,  and  exerting  the  same  authority  over  the 
churches  in  Ephesus,  which  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church 
do  in  their  respective  dioceses." 

As  a  specimen  of  our  author's  reasoning,  this  can  not  fail  to 
afford  amusement. 

Let  us  examine  it  part  by  part.  "  Christ  especially  com- 
mends him  for  having  enforced  his  authority  in  the  exercise  of 
discipline.''^  What  had  the  angel  done  ?  He  had  tried  them 
which  said  they  were  apostles  and  were  not.  Our  author's 
idea  is,  that  he  had  "  instituted  proceedings"  against  them,  i.  e. 
he  had  arraigned  them  before  a  bishop's  court,  and  read  an 
indictment,  and  called  witnesses,  and  proceeded  regularly,  ac- 
cording to  law,  to  convict  and  sentence  them.  All  this,  out  of 
that  httle  word  "  tried.''^  Now  there  are  a  great  many  ways  of 
frying  men  who  set  up  high  pretensions,  some  of  which  with- 
out the  formality  of  a  bishop's  court,  one  would  suppose  might 
have  been  used  some  years  ago  in  this  city,  in  the  case  of  the 
famous  tractarian  and  canon  of  Oxford  University,  who,  after 
being  feasted  and  lionized  for  several  days  by  all  the  Episcopal 
clergy,  was  finally  claimed  in  the  street,  by  a  forsaken  wife,  who 
desired  him  to  return  to  Ohio,  and  look  after  his  children.  It 
is  evident  that  quite  too  much  is  claimed  for  that  word  "  tried." 
When  men  come  to  me  claiming  to  be  ministers,  if  I  am  doubt- 
ful of  their  character,  I  always  try  them.  I  ask  for  their 
credentials,  and  in  various  ways  subject  them  to  such  tests  as  I 
deem  requisite  for  affording  me  full  satisfaction,  and  if  I  find 
them  to  be  impostors,  I  send  them  away  and  warn  the  churches 
9 


170  THE  CHURCH, 

against  them.  But  I  am  nothing  more  than  a  plain  scriptural 
bishop,  and  no  prelate  at  all. 

^^For  having  enforced  his  authority  in  the  exercise  of  disci- 
pline upon  those,  tvho,  it  would  seem,  had  claimed  to  he  apostles 
without  any  proper  yjarrant;  thus  clearly  proving  that  he, 
that  is,  the  angel  at  Ephesus,  was  an  apostle^ 

The  word  "  apostle "  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the 
reader  has  seen,  and  as  our  author  may  be .  presumed  to  know, 
sometimes  to  express  one  of  the  twelve  high  functionaries 
appointed  by  Christ  to  preside  over  the  founding  and  establish- 
ing of  his  church,  and  sometimes  to  express  an  ordinary  chris- 
tian minister,  sent  abroad  as  a  missionary.  Our  author  has  an 
intuitive  knowledge  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  here.  He 
knows  by  an  instinct  of  his  genius, —  for  he  could  not  know  in 
any  other  way, —  that  those  persons  whom  the  angel  at  Ephesus 
tried,  claimed  to  be  apostles  in  the  highest  and  most  dignified 
sense  of  the  word.  I  submit  to  the  reader,  if  it  is  not  alto- 
gether more  probable  that  they  pretended  to  be  missionaries, 
duly  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel?  Our  author  has 
obtained  a  foundation,  however,  broad  enough  to  serve  him  for 
a  conclusion. — "  Thus  clearly  proving  that  he,  that  is,  the  angel 
at  Ephesus  was  an  ap)ostler  Suppose  it  were  certain  that 
those  imposters  claimed  to  be  apostles  in  the  highest  sense,  how 
would  it  then  be  "  clearly  proved  "  that  the  angel  was  such  an 
apostle,  by  his  detecting  them  in  their  falsehood  ?  The  old 
saying,  that  "  it  takes  a  rogue  to  catch  a  rogue,"  may  possibly 
have  some  degree  of  truth  in  it,  but  I  can  not  see  why  it  should 
take  an  apostle  to  know  an  apostle.  "  The  signs  of  an  apostle," 
which  Paul  tells  us  were  "  signs,  and  wonders,  and  mighty 
deeds,"  were  certainly  not  so  obscure  that  a  plain  pastor  of  a 
church  could  not  discern  them.  How  then  would  it  follow  that 
the  angel  at  Ephesus  was  an  apostle,  or  a  prelatic  bishop,  from 
his  detecting  the  falsehood  of  those  that  "  said  they  were  apos- 
tles and  were  not  ? "  Could  not  a  Presbyterian  pastor  say  to 
one  coming  to  him  with  such  high  claims, — "  Sir,  you  say  that 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  171 

you  are  an  apostle ;  now  show  tlie  proof,  and  I  will  believe  you. 
Do  a  manifest  miracle,  and  you  shall  be  received  and  hon- 
ored, according  to  your  desire  ?  "  And  would  not  this  be  trying 
him  ?  This  is  the  very  way  in  which  w^e  do  try  those  who  in  these 
times  "  say  they  are  apostles  and  ai-e  not,  and  find  them  liars." 
"  Thus  clearly  proving  that  he,  that  is,  the  angel  at  Ephesus, 
was  an  apostle,  and  that  there  were  still  true  apostles  in  the 
church,  for  had  he  not  been  an  apostle  he  would  have  had  no 
authority  to  try  their  claims^''  Our  author's  head  is  full  of  his 
idea  of  a  bishop's  court.  I  grant  that  none .  but  a  bona-fide 
bishop,  according  to  the  Ej^iscopal  sense  of  the  word,  would 
have  had  authority  to  hold  a  bishop's  court,  but  to  insist  that 
the  false  apostles  were  tried  in  a  bishop's  court,  such  as  our 
author  is  thinking  of,  is  asking  a  little  too  much.  They  were 
put  to  the  test  of  their  apostleship.  This  is  the  reasonable  con- 
struction of  the  language  used,  and  if  any  thing  else  is  contended 
for,  it  must  be  proved.  They  may  have  been  put  to  the  test 
of  their  apostleship  before  a  presbyter  bishop's  court,  that  is, 
before  the  pastor  and  his  session,  or  board  of  elders;  this  is 
possible ;  and  such  a  court  any  pastor  would  have  authority  to 
hold,  to  try  a  pretended  apostle.  Let  me  ask  Mr.  Schuyler  if 
he  does  not  regard  himself  as  having  the  authority  which  he 
thinks  was  exercised  by  the  angel  at  Ephesus  ?  If  a  person 
should  come  to  him,  claiming  to  be  the  bishop  of  some  distant 
and  obscure  diocese  of  the  church  of  England,  a  person  of 
whom  he  had  no  knowledge,  and  had  never  before  heard,  would 
he  not  feel  it  to  be  his  duty  as  well  as  right^  to  try  him,  to  put 
him  to  the  test  in  some  way,  before  receiving  him  in  the  char- 
acter which  he  professed  ?  Would  he  not  feel  authorized  to 
demand  the  gentleman's  testimonials,  and  if  he  found  them  to 
be  forgeries,  to  reject  and  denounce  him  ?  I  do  not  know  how 
my  brother  would  be  affected  by  the  bare  presumption  of 
having  an  apostle  to  deal  with,  but  I  think  he  would  claim  the 
right  which  I  have  supposed,  and  exercise  it.  What  a  sudden 
leap  he  would  make  among  the  stars!     According  to  his  own 


172  THE  CHURCH, 

reasoning,  it  would  "  clearly  prove  "  that  he,  that  is,  Mr.  Schuy- 
ler, "  is  an  apostle  —  for  had  he  not  been  an  apostle,  he  would 
have  had  no  authority  to  try  "  this  pretender's  "  claims." 

Not  only  was  the  angel  at  Ephesus  clearly  proved  to  be  an 
apostle,  by  his  trying  those  that  "  said  they  were  apostles,  and 
were  not,"  but  it  was  clearly  proved  also,  as  a  larger  proposi- 
tion, "  that  there  tvere  still  true  apostles  in  the  church;  for  had 
there  not  been  true  apostles,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity/ 
for  instituting  2^roceedings  to  detect  the  falseP 

This  would  be  very  good  logic,  if  our  author  had  only 
proved  that  these  imposters  claimed  to  be  apostles  in  the  high 
and  distinctive  sense  of  the  word.  But  if  what  they  claimed 
was,  merely  to  be  missionaries,  and  this  is  by  far  the  most 
natural  supposition,  then  it  is  only  proved  that  missionaries 
were  still  employed  in  the  church,  which  we  fully  beheve.  I 
say  the  most  natural  supposition  is,  that  they  claimed  to  be  mis- 
sionaries ;  for  missionaries,  we  know,  were  going  to  every  part 
of  the  world,  but  apostles,  according  to  the  Episcopal  theory, 
had  at  this  time  become  almost  universally  fixed  stars,  like  the 
angel  or  star  at  Ephesus.  If  there  were  any  true  apostles  still 
acting  as  missionaries,  they  must  have  been  few  in  number  and 
well  known ;  and  as  for  the  rest,  it  was  in  itself  a  suspicious 
circumstance,  that  they  should  be  wandering  about  away  from 
their  dioceses.  It  would  evidently  be  a  poor  business  for 
impostors  to  set  up  as  apostles ;  but  to  set  up  as  missionaries, 
as  evangelists,  as  travehng  preachers  of  the  gospel,  would  be 
less  unpromising.  All  the  probabilities  of  the  case  are  adverse 
to  our  author's  assumption. 

But  let  us  take  his  conclusion,  —  "  Here,  then,  is  an  officer 
above  all  other  ministers,  occupying  the  position,  and  exerting 
the  same  authority  over  the  churches  hi  Ephesus,  which  the 
bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church  do  in  their  respective  dioceses. 
Who  can  doubt  itP''  &c.,  &c. ! 

The  reader  is  free  to  his  own  opinion -as  to  what  this  brave 
conclusion  rests  upon.     What  one  thing  has  our  author  pointed 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  173 

out  to  us,  appertaining  to  the  "  angels  of  the  churches,"  which 
Episcopal  bishops  only  can  do  ?  What  one  thing,  which  the 
pastor  of  the  smallest  congregation  in  the  world  may  not  do, 
just  as  well  as  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  all  the  prelates 
in  Christendom  put  together. 

We  might,  if  it  were  necessary,  meet  our  author's  argument, 
and,  though  poorly  constructed  and  feebly  stated,  it  is  the  argu- 
ment substantially  of  all  his  school  of  writers,  on  entirely 
different  ground  from  any  which  has  yet  been  assumed. 
Though  these  messages  of  Christ  were  formally  sent  to  the 
angels  of  the  churches,  and  are,  for  the  most  part,  addressed 
by  the  designative  terms,  thee  and  thou,  yet  nothing  is  more 
evident  than  that  they  were  really  sent  to  the  churches,  as 
such,  and  to  the  angels  only  as  presidents  of  the  churches 
and  representing  them ;  so,  that  whatever  powers  and  prero- 
gatives seem  to  be  attributed  to  the  angels,  are  really  not 
the  angels'  alone,  but  belong  to  the  churches,  with  their  minis- 
ters at  their  head.  Let  the  messages  themselves  be  considered, 
and  the  least  discriminating  reader  can  not  fail  to  perceive  that 
it  is  a  perfect  absurdity  to  regard  them  as  being  addressed  to 
the  angels  as  such,  and  t<S  them  solely.  In  the  message  to  the 
angel  at  Ephesus,  Christ  says,  —  "  Nevertheless,  I  have  some- 
what against  thee,  because  thou  hast  left  thy  first  love.  Remem- 
ber, therefore,  from  whence  thou  art  fallen ;  and  repent,  and  do 
thy  first  works ;  or  else  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly,  and  will 
remove  thy  candlestick  out  of  his  place,  except  thou  repent."  — 
Was  this  said  to  the  angel  alone,  or  to  the  church  also  ?  Was 
the  church  to  be  visited  with  divine  judgment,  even  to  removal 
or  extermination,  for  the  sin  of  the  angel,  and  not  for  its  own 
sins  ?  Look  everywhere  in  these  messages,  and  it  seems  to  me 
the  man  is  beside  himself,  who  can  not  see  that  it  is  the 
churches  as  entire  wholes,  —  presidents,  associate  elders,  and 
people,  —  that  ai-e  addressed.  And,  to  put  the  matter  to  rest 
effectually,  let  the  brief  but  solemn  caution  with  which  each 


174  THE  CHURCH, 

message  closes,  be  considered  —  "  He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him 
hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches^ 

The  exercise  of  authority,  therofore,  in  the  enforcement  of 
discipline,  and  the  trying  of  false  apostles,  &c.,  which,  Mr. 
Schuyler  thinks,  prove  so  clearly  that  the  angels  were  apostles 
or  prelatic  bishops,  were  things  done,  according  to  the  record, 
not  by  the  angels,  as  such,  at  all,  but  by  the  churches  in 
connection  with  their  angels  or  ministers. 

In  every  view  which  can  be  taken  of  this  subject,  the  argu- 
ment for  diocesan  episcopacy  fails  —  as  it  has  failed  in  every 
other  instance  —  and  the  whole  weight  of  evidence  is  found  to 
be  on  the  side  of  parity. 

I  have  now  passed  over  the  entire  ground  upon  which  a 
scriptural  defense  of  prelacy  is  attempted ;  I  will  not  presume 
that  what  I  have  written  will  convert  Episcopalians,  for  I  doubt 
if  many  will  read  it ;  but  I  am  satisfied,  without  taking  much 
credit  to  myself,  that  no  honest  and  imj^artial  reader  will  rise 
from  the  perusal  of  these  pages  and  not  be  convinced  that  the 
whole  episcopal  theory  is  a  baseless  fabric  of  the  most  indefen- 
sible assumptions.  There  is  really  nothing  in  the  bible  which, 
when  it  is  sifted,  seems  to  favor  that  system,  but  every  thing  is 
in  direct  hostility  against  it.  When  I  say  this,  I  am  sure  I  do 
not  speak  under  the  heat  of  a  controversial  excitement,  but 
express  the  deliberate  conviction  in  which  my  mind  has  rested, 
ever  since  I  first  examined  this  subject,  sixteen  years  ago,  for 
the  determination  of  my  own  course,  when  I  proposed  entering 
the  christian  ministry. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  175 

IS   THERE  AUTHORITY  FOR  PRESBYTERIAL 
ORDINATION? 

Our  author  says  on  page  sixty-eiglit, — "  We  have  endeavored 
to  show,  and  we  think,  established  conclusively  the  fact,  that 
there  are  three  orders  of  ministers  recognized  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures ;  that  this  was  the  case  while  Christ  was  upon  earth,  Christ 
himself  having  been  consecrated  to  the  ministry,  and  occupy in^^ 
the  highest,  the  apostles  in  the  second  grade,  and  the  seventy 
disciples  in  the  lowest.  We  noticed,  also,  that  after  Christ's 
ascension,  the  apostles  continued  the  like  number  of  orders; 
viz.,  apostles,  elders  or  presbyters,  and  deacons.  We  showed 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  succeeded  to  the  apostolical  office,  and 
that  to  them  was  committed  the  charge  of  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  in  Ephesus  and  Crete :  that,  as  the  successors  of  the 
apostles,  they  were  constituted  supreme  rulei-s  in  these  churches, 
with  exclusive  authority  in  their  respective  dioceses  over  both 
presbyters  and  deacons,  to  exercise  discipline,  correct  abuses,  and 
ordain." 

I  am  sure,  that  the  reader,  who  has  carefully  followed  me 
through  the  topics  thus  recapitulated,  must  smile  at  our  author's 
complacent  remembrance  of  his  labors.     He  proceeds : 

"  Thus  we  clearly  traced  the  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  and 
proved  from  apostolic  practice  and  sanction,  that  the  right  to 
govern  the  church  and  ordain  to  the  ministry  was  vested  in  the 
highest  gi-ade  alone.  It  is  true,  w^e  did  not  cite  any  passage  of 
scripture  expressly  limiting  such  power  to  them.  This  was 
unnecessary.  We  showed,  clearly,  that  such  power  was  posi- 
tively given  to  the  apostles ;  it  was  not  given  to  the  presbyters 
or  deacons,  and  not  being  given,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible, 
that  they  did  not  possess  it;  and  therefore  an  express  limitation 
or  a  positive  declaration  of  holy  scripture,  that  no  othei-s  but 
the   apostles  were   authorized   to  exercise  these   powders,  was 


176  THE  CHURCH, 

entirely  unnecessary.  Could  wc  be  furnished  with  a  single 
instance  in  the  New  Testament,  of  presbyters  or  deacons  exer- 
cising the  right  to  ordain,  though  no  apostolic  injunction  could 
be  shown,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  would  yet 
consider  it  as  endorsed  with  apostolic  sanction,  and  yield  the 
point  in  dispute  at  once;  but  "sve  find  no  evidence  of  such 
example  or  sanction  for  presbyterian  ordination,  and  therefore 
we  are  compelled  to  reject  it." 

Qur  author  says, —  "  Wc  have  shoion  dearly  that  such  'power 
{i.  e.  power  to  ordain)  ivas  positively  given  to  the  a^yostlesr 

He  has  shown  that  this  power  w\as  given  to  the  2^^'^'sons  who 
held  the  apostolic  ofiice,  but  has  he  shown  that  it  was  given  to 
them  as  apostles^  Does  not  the  reader  perceive  that  he 
entirely  assumes  the  very  question  in  debate,  without  even  an 
attempt  to  prove  it  ? 

The  apostles  were  ^^rfsSy^ers,  as  well  as  apostles. —  See  1 
Peter  v:  1,  2  John  i,  3  John  i.  Now  it  is  indispensable  to 
our  author's  argument,  to  show  that  it  was  as  apostles, 
and  not  as  presbyters,  that  they  received  and  exercised  the 
ordaining  power.  We  think  we  ha^  e  made  it  clear  to  every 
candid  reader,  that  what  was  peculiar  and  distingiiishing 
to  the  apostles,  as  such,  was  the  power  of  witnessing  from 
personal  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  that  nothing  else  of  a 
functional  nature  was  peculiar  to  them,  or  distinguished  them. 
If  this  is  so,  then  the  power  to  ordain  was  vested  in  them,  not 
as  apostles,  but  as  presbyters. 

The  power  to  ordain  must  have  been  left  by  Christ,  when  he 
ascended,  in  some  hands ;  and  the  men  wdiom  he  had  chosen 
to  be  his  apostles  were  the  only  persons  whom  he  had  endowed 
with  any  ministerial  authority  whatever.  They,  of  course, 
were  the  persons  to  provide  a  ministry  for  the  church.  Whether 
the  power  to  ordain  appertained  to  their  apostolical,  or  presby- 
terial  office,  is  a  question  not  to  be  disposed  of  so  easily  as  Mr. 
Schuyler  seems  to  imagine.  We  have  attempted  to  settle  it, 
by  showing  that  this  powder  of  ordination  was  not  comprehended 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  177 

in  what  was  peculiar  to  tlie  apostleship.  Let  it  be  made  to 
appear,  if  it  can  be,  that  our  argument  on  that  head  is  unsound. 
It  may  be  objected  to  the  texts  which  we  have  cited  to 
prove  that  the  apostles  were  also  presbytei-s,  that  John  does  cot 
apply  that  term  to  himself  as  a  term  of  office,  but  as  indicative 
of  his  advanced  age.  Commentators  are  divided  on  this  point; 
but  I  confess,  I  am  unable  to  see  why  they  should  be.  "  The 
elder  unto  the  elect  ladyV  — "  The  elder  unto  the  weU-heloved 
GaiusP  —  This  seems  a  most  singular  manner  of  speaking,  if 
John  merely  intended  to  describe  himself  as  a  person  of  great 
age.  Besides,  if  that  were  his  purpose,  why  did  he  use  the 
term  "  o  presbuteros,^^  the  term  invariably  used  as  the  name  of 
the  elder's  office,  and  not,  as  Paul,  when  he  would  represent 
himself  as  an  old  man,  (see  Philem.  9,)  the  term  ^^  presbutes,'^ 

—  the  proper,  and  the  only  proper  term  to  express  his  mean- 
ing, if  any  derivative  of  presbus,  was  to  be  employed  ?  Why 
should  he  call  himself  the  elder  7nan,  and  not  the  old  man? 

But  this  objection  does  not  lie  against  the  text  from  1  Pet^r. 

—  "  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also 
an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ."  There  can 
be  no  question  of  Peter's  applying  the  term  "  elder"  to  himself 
as  a  title  of  office.  He  positively  affirms,  that  he  is  an  elder 
like  the  elders  whom  he  exhorts,  that  he  is  one  of  them,  hold- 
ing the  same  office  which  they  hold,  and  so  far  on  a  level  with 
them.  The  reader  will  perceive  how,  while  he  acknowledges 
himself  to  be  an  elder,  and  thus  the  equal  only  of  the  elders 
whom  he  exhorts,  he  claims,  at  the  same  time,  superiority,  and 
a  right  to  be  attended  to,  on  the  ground  of  being  something 
more  than  an  elder,  —  even  "  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,'" —  that  is,  an  apostle.  What  a  proof  is  here  that  we 
were  right  in  our  argument  respecting  the  apostleship, —  that 
its  essential  peculiarity  was  the  power  of  witnessing  for  Cluist! 

The  oi-iginal   Greek  is  stronger  for  Peter's  eldership  than 
our  translation.    Peter  calls  himself  "o  suinpresbuteros,''  fellow- 
elder,  expressing  more  strongly  the  absolute  sameness  of  the 
9* 


178  THE  CHURCH, 

presbyterial  office  held  by  him,  with  that  which  was  held  by 
those  whom  he  was  addressing. 

I  see  no  w^ay  by  which  the  force  of  this  text  may  be  evaded, 
but  by  admitting  that  Peter  was  a  presbyter,  and  denying  that 
any  other  apostle  was  so ;  that  is,  by  claiming  that  Peter  was  a 
singular  exception,  and  that,  for  some  unexplained  reason,  the 
presbyterial  office  had  been  conferred  on  him  alone.  This  may 
be  affirmed^  but  it  wih  hardly  be  believed,  even  by  the  affirm- 
ants. On  the  contrary,  we  refer  to  the  text,  and  show  that  Peter 
does  not  claim  to  be  an  elder  at  all,  as  though  it  constituted  for 
him  a  distinction  among  the  apostles ;  and  besides,  we  appeal 
to  the  commission  given  by  our  Lord  to  all  the  apostles,  to  do 
the  very  work  which  presbyters  were  appointed  to  perform,  — 
to  preach  the  gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments. 

Mr.  S.  admits  that  the  apostles  were  elders.  On  page 
seventy-two  of  his  book,  he  says,  the  presbytery  which  ordained 
Timothy  "  may  have  been  com'po^ed  only  of  apostles,  for  we 
hioiv  that  both  Peter  and  John  style  themselves  elders  or 
presbytersT 

With  this  important  fact  proved  and  admitted,  see  how  the 
whole  argument  of  our  author  falls  to  the  ground.  "  We 
showed  clearly  that  such  p)oiver  (i.  e.  power  to  ordain)  was 
positively  given  to  the  apostles^  That  is  to  say,  he  has  shown 
that  such  power  was  positively  given  to  presbyters  —  for  the 
apostles  were  presbyters;  and  we  have  shown  that  as  apostles, 
their  sole  duty  was  to  be  witnesses  of  Christ. 

"  It  was  not  given^''  says  our  author,  "  to  the  presbyters  or 
deacons^  and  not  being  given  to  them  the  conclusion  is  irresisti- 
ble, that  they  did  not  possess  it;  and  therefore  an  express 
limitation  or  a  positive  declaration  of  holy  scripture,  that  no 
other's  but  apostles  were  authorized  to  exercise  this  power,  was 
entirely  unnecessary."  We  very  cheerfully  concede  the  fact, 
that  it  was  not  given  to  the  deacons,  and  for  the  very  best  of 
reasons ;  but  it  was  given  to  presbyters,  and,  if  we  may  steal 
the  thunder  of  our  author's  most  astonishing  logic,  being  given 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  179 

to  them,  the  conckision  is  irresistible,  that  they  did  possess  it, 
"  and  therefore  an  express  hmitation,  or  a  positive  declaration 
of  holy  scripture,  that  no  others  but"  elders  "were  authoiized 
to  exercise  this  power  was  entirely  unnecessary." 

The  presbyterial  office  was  the  only  permanent  ministerial 
office  held  by  the  apostles,  and  consequently  the  only  one 
which  they  had  the  power  to  impart.  They  could  not  impart 
the  apostleship ;  for,  as  we  have  shown,  and  as  Dr.  Barrow  main- 
tains, with  such  resistless  force  of  argument,  "the  ajDostolical 
office,  as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary;  and  therefore, 
according  to  its  nature  and  design^  not  successive,  or  communi- 
cable to  others."  Now,  in  imparting  the  presbyterial  office,  in 
what  character  did  they  act  ?  When,  in  token  of  communica- 
tion, they  laid  their  hands  upon  a  man  and  ordained  him  to 
the  pregbyterate,  did  they  act  as  apostles,  or  as  presbyters  ?  as 
presbyters,  certainly,  seeing  that  it  was  the  presbyterial  office 
which  they  were  communicating. 

The  act  of  imposition  of  hands,  when  it  was  any  thing  more 
than  a  gesture  of  designation,  as  in  the  bestowment  of  a  bless- 
ing, was  the  outward  and  visible  sign  of  impartation.  Thus 
the  apostles  laid  hands  on  those  to  whom  they  imparted  the 
Holy  Ghost,  or  any  spiritual  gift;  not  as  though  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  the  spiritual  gift  were  actually  communicated  by 
contact,  but,  as  a  significant  sign  of  what  they  did ;  —  a  prac- 
tice, by  the  way,  most  absurdly  retained  by  Episcopal  bishops 
in  the  rite  of  confirmation.  I  say  absurdly  retained,  for  have 
they  any  idea  that  they  bestow  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  that  they 
impart  any  spiritual  gift  whatever?  Do  they  suppose,  while 
they  can  not  lay  claim  to  any  other  one  of  the  miraculous 
powers  of  the  apostles,  that  they  have  this  power, —  which  was 
as  truly  miraculous  as  any  other  by  which  the  apostles  attested 
their  divine  mission  ?  Who  has  ever  seen  the  evidence  in  those 
confirmed  by  them,  that  by  that  act  they  had  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  or  any  other  miraculous  gifts  of  grace?  The 
apostles  also  laid  hands  on  those  to  whom  they  imparted  office ; 


180  THE    CHURCH, 

whom  they  ordained,  not  as  though  the  official  character  were 
actually  communicated  by  touch,  but  for  a  sign.  They  gave 
the  office,  and  signified  it  by  laying  their  hands  on  the  head 
of  the  person  who  received  the  gift.  In  either  case,  whether 
they  were  communicating  grace  or  office,  the  imposition  of 
their  hands  was  the  sign  of  impartation.  Now  what  I  desire 
to  have  especially  considered  is,  that  in  making  this  sign,  they 
themselves  acted  in  the  character  of  holders  of  that  which  they 
communicated.  If  they  imparted  spiritual  gifts,  they  did  it  as 
possessors  of  spiritual  gifts.  If  they  imparted  office,  they  did 
it  as  possessors  of  the  office  which  they  imparted.  This  was 
the  very  thing  in  which  lay  the  significancy  of  the  manual 
imposition.  It  was  as  if  the  office  or  the  gifts  passed  from  one 
to  the  other  through  the  connecting  medium  thus  established. 
We  say,  therefore,  that  in  ordaining  presbyters,  the  apostles 
acted  as  presbyters.  Let  it  be  shown  that  they  ever  ordained 
other  apostles,  and  we  will  own  that  in  doing  this  they  acted 
as  ajoostles.  But  we  call  in  vain  for  such  a  showing.  If  we 
are  reminded  of  the  ordination  of  the  seven  deacons  as  an 
apparent  objection  to  the  statement  that  has  just  been  made, 
we  would  say,  that  the  imposition  of  the  apostles'  hands  in  that 
case,  may  have  been  nothing  more  than  a  sign  of  the 
communication  of  spiritual  gifts;  or,  it  may  be  considered, 
that,  as  the  deacon's  office  had,  until  that  time,  been  exercised 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  they,  in  ordaining  the  deacons, 
acted  as  deacons,  giving  up,  or  transferring  that  particular 
charge  to  them. 

Says  our  author, —  '^CovM  we  be  furnished  with  a  single 
instance  in  the  New  Testament^  of  presbyters  or  deacons  exer- 
cising the  right  to  ordain,  though  no  apostolic  injunction  could 
he  shown,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  would  yet 
consider  it  as  endorsed  with  apostolic  sanction,  and  yield  the 
point  in  dispute  at  once;  but  we  can  find  no  evidence  of  such 
example  or  sanction  for  presbyterian  ordination,  and  there- 
fore loe  are  compelled  to  reject  it^ 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  181 

We  refer  him  then  to  every  particular  instance  of  ordination 
of  which  a  record  is  made  in  the  New  Testament,  as  just  such 
an  instance  as  he  is  inquiring  after.  There  is  no  instance 
recorded  of  the  apostles  ordaining  an  apostle.  They  ordained 
elders,  and  this  they  did  as  elders,  furnishing  at  once  both  the 
example  and  the  sanction  on  which  rests  the  right  of  presbyte- 
rian  ordination;  not  only  did  they  themselves  ordain  elders, 
but  they  appointed  other  elders  to  do  the  same,  "  as  in  the  case 
of  Timothy  and  Titus."  This  satisfies  us,  and  it  ought  to  satisfy 
our  author. 

For  positive  proof  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  exercised 
by  presbyters,  we  refer  to  1  Timothy  iv:  14,  "  Neglect  not  the 
gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  ivilk  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  Our  author  lays 
himself  out  with  unusual  spirit  to  do  away  with  the  killing 
force  of  this  passage.  His  struggles  however,  only  make  the 
matter  worse  for  him.  The  passage  remains,  a  clear  and  unde- 
niable record  of  just  such  an  ordination,  as  he  says  he  requires 
but  one  instance  of,  to  be  persuaded  to  "  yield  the  point  in 
dispute  at  once." 

He  begins  with  a  frank  admission  that  the  text  "  refers  to  an 
ordination"  though  he  says,  "  this  has  been  ably  disputed  by 
some  of  our  most  learned  men ;  and  among  them,  by  the  able 
author  of  the  tract,  episcoj^ac?/  tested  hy  scripture^  The  reason 
why  some  Episcopalians  have  denied  that  the  passage  before  us 
refers  to  an  ordination,  is  very  obvious.  Some,  and  amono- 
them,  the  truly  able  author  of  the  tract,  "  Episcopacy  tested  by 
Sci'ipture,"  have  had  the  sagacity  to  perceive,  that  oji  this 
denial  rests  the  only  hope  of  successfully  resisting  the  Presbyte- 
rian argument.  If  the  passage  presents  a  case  of  ordination, 
the  debate  is  essentially  ended,  for  that  it  was  a  presbyterial 
ordination  is  manifest. 

We  do  not  require  the  reader  to  assume  this  important  point, 
but  we  ask  him  to  look  at  the  connection  in  which  the  text 


182  THE  CHURCH, 

stands,  and  see  if  the  "  gift "  spoken  of,  can  possibly  mean  any- 
thing else  than  the  ministerial  office  which  Timothy  had. 

Says  Paul,  in  the  sixth  verse, — "  If  thou  put  the  brethren  in 
remembrance  of  these  things,  thou  shalt  be  a  good  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ,  nourished  up  in  the  word  of  faith  and  of  good 
doctrine,  whereunto  thou  hast  attained.  But  refuse  profane, 
and  old  wives'  fables,  and  exercise  thyself  unto  godliness."  In 
the  eleventh  verse  he  proceeds, —  "  These  things  command  and 
teach ;  —  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth ;  but  be  thou  an 
example  of  believers,"  &c.  "  Till  I  come,  give  attendance  to 
reading,  to  exhortation,  to  doctrine.  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is 
in  thee,  ivhich  ivas  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  Meditate  upon  these  things : 
give  thyself  wholly  to  them,  that  thy  profiting  may  appear  to 
all.  Take  heed  unto  thyself,  and  unto  the  doctrine;  continue 
in  them;  for  in  doing  this,  thou  shalt  both  save  thyself  and 
them  that  hear  thee."  Now,  what  is  the  subject  of  the  apostle's 
discourse  to  Timothy  in  this  place  ?  His  ministry^  evidently. 
This,  then,  beyond  the  possibility  of  reasonable  contradiction, 
was  the  gift  which  he  is  exhorted  not  to  neglect.  The  author 
of  the  tract,  "  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,"  has  no  way  of 
evading  this  conclusion,  but  by  supposing  that  the  gift  which 
was  in  Timothy,  "by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery,"  was  his  designation,  subsequently  to  his  minis- 
terial ordination,  to  the  particular  field  of  labor  he  then  occu- 
pied ;  as  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  designated  at  Antioch  —  see 
Acts  xiii :  3  —  to  a  particular  work.  The  fallacy  of  such  a 
supposition,  however,  may  be  easily  exposed.  Could  the  gift 
of  the  ministry  that  was  in  Barnabas  and  Saul,  when  they 
went  forth  on  that  special  mission,  be  spoken  of  as  being 
derived  from  the  solemn  form  of  separation  by  which  they  had 
been  set  apart  to  that  special  work  ?  Did  they  by  that  act  of 
consecration  to  a  special  work,  receive  the  ministerial  office? 
Yet  in  the  present  case,  the  case  of  Timothy,  it  was  the  very 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  i83 

gift  of  the  ministry  itself  that  lie  is  represented  as  having 
received  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  the  tract,  '•  Epis- 
copacy tested  by  Scripture,"  does  not  deny  that  the  text  before 
us  relates  to  Timothy's  ordination.  He  merely  ventures  an 
opinion,  that  it  is  susceptible  of  a  different  construction.  He 
says  —  "  Was  the  laying  on  of  hands,  on  Timothy,  here  men- 
tioned, an  ordination  ?  It  can  not,  at  least,  be  proved.  And 
comparing  scripture  with  scripture,  are  we  not  justified  in 
regarding  it  as  a  transaction  similar  to  the  one  in  the  case 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul  ?  " 

Beyond  all  doubt,  our  author  is  correct  in  his  admission,  that 
the  text  w^e  are  now  considering,  describes  an  ordination  to  the 
ministry. 

The  next  inquiry  relates  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '' pres- 
bytery T  "  Does  it  refer,"  our  author  asks,  "  to  the  body  of 
ordainers,  or  does  it  refer  to  the  office  to  which  Timothy  was 
ordained  ? "  He  proceeds  to  say  —  "  Many  learned  men  have 
inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  it  refers  to  the  office,"  and  then 
cites  the  names  of  Calvin  and  Grotius;  the  former  of  whom,  in 
fact,  expresses  just  the  contrary  opinion,  while  the  latter  only 
refrains  from  insisting  o\\  the  usual  interpretation,  out  of  defer- 
ence to  the  opinions  of  Ambrose  and  Jerome,  and  from  a  mis- 
take which  he  also  seems  to  have  fallen  into  in  regard  to  the 
opinion  of  Calvin.  Calvin  says,  that  he  thinks  the  text  might 
bear  such  an  interpretation  as  that  put  upon  it  by  Ambrose  and 
Jerome,  yet,  "  they  who  think  that  presbytery  here  is  a  collec- 
tive name  put  for  the  assembly  of  presbyters,  in  my  opinion 
judge  rightly r 

"  Admitting  this  interpretation,"  says  our  author,  "  we  would 
have  the  account,  simply,  of  the  ordination  of  Timothy  as  a 
presbyter,  without  any  intimation  from  the  passage  itself,  of  the 
character  and  office  of  the  person,  or  persons  by  whom  the  act 
was  performed."  This,  he  says,  is  "  one  mode  of  interpreting 
the  passage  —  which  divests  it  of  the  least  color  of  proof  in 


184  THE  CHURCH, 

favor  of  Timothy's   ordination    by  presbyters."     Has   lie    not 
rushed  from  Scyha  into  Charybdis? 

"  Me  miserable  ! which  way  I  fly  is," 


He  had  probably  forgotten  that  the  office  to  which  Timothy 
was  ordained  by  the  presbytery,  was  at  any  rate  the  office 
which  he  exercised  at  Ephesus  I  If  he  very  much  desires  it, 
perhaps  we  might  be  induced  to  consent  to  this  interpretation, 
and  instead  of  using  the  text  as  a  proof  for  presbyterial  ordina- 
tion, take  it  as  proving  that  Timothy  was  only  a  presbyter,  and 
not  apostolic  bishop  in  the  Ephesian  church. 

We  do  not  deny  that  Timothy  was  ordained  a  presbyter. 
On  the  contrary,  we  affirm  it,  and  we  affirm  that  this  tiaxt 
teaches  it,  inasmuch  as  it  teaches  that  he  was  ordained  by  pres- 
byters, as  such,  acting  together  in  the  capacity  of  a  presbytery. 
But  we  think  it  very  absurd  to  say  that  the  primary  and  spe- 
cific meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the 
presbyterate,  and  not  by  the  presbytery. 

Goode,  in  his  "  Divine  Rule,"  vol.  ii,  page  sixty-four,  refer- 
ring to  a  passage  in  the  commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  epistles, 
commonly  attributed  to  Hilary,  though  by  some  to  Ambrose, 
says  —  "  Timothy  is  here  said,  we  may  obser\'e,  to  have  been 
ordained  a  presbyter,  and  I  can  not  but  think  that  the  passage, 
1  Tim.  iv:  14,  is  favorable  to  this  view,  for  without  adopting 
the  translation  which  some  have  given  of  this  passage,  Aaz., 
*  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  for  the  office  of  a  presbyter,^  if 
we  retain  our  own  version,  which  appears  to  me  more  natural, 
—  who,  or  v/hat  is  the  presbytery?  Certainly  not  consisting 
altogether  of  the  apostles,  though,  it  appears, — 2  Tim.  i :  6, — that 
ordination  was  received  by  Timothy  partly  from  St.  Paul.  But 
if  presbyters  joined  in  that  ordination,  it  could  not  be  to  a  higher 
sacerdotal  grade,  or  order,  than  that  of  the  presbyterhood.  Nor 
is  this  inconsistent  with  his  being  called  elsewhere  an  apostle, 
which  name  might  be  given  him  as  one  appointed  to  be 
superintendent  of  a  church." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  185 

Goode  thinks  that  the  text  teaches,  that  Timothy  was  ordained 
a  presbyter,  because  he  was  ordained  by  the  preHhytery^  which 
he  is  sure  must  have  been  composed,  in  part,  at  least,  of  j^resby- 
ters.  He  is  undoubtedly  right,  in  every  thing  except  in  sup- 
posing that  the  presbytery  was  not  composed  altogether  of 
elders,  whatever  offices  besides  may  have  been  held  by  those 
who  acted  as  members  of  it. 

The  word  "  presbytery,"  2^'f'esbuterion,  is  never  used  in  the 
New  Testament  for  the  name  of  an  office.  It  occurs  only  in 
two  other  places  —  Luke  xxii :  66,  where  it  is  rendered  "  elders," 
and  Acts  xxii :  5,  where  it  is  rendered  "  estate  of  the  elders." 
In  each  of  these  places  it  refers  to  the  council  or  assembly  of 
the  elders  of  the  Jews.  In  the  passage  now  under  considera- 
tion, it  can  not  refer  to  that  body,  for  no  one  will  suppose  that 
they  ordained  men  to  the  office  of  the  christian  ministiy.  As, 
however,  in  both  of  those  instances  it  signifies  a  body  of  per- 
sons known  as  elders,  so  here  it  signifies  some  council,  or 
assembly,  or  body  of  persons,  known  by  the  name  of  elders  in 
the  christian  church.  It  is  enough  to  say  a  ijlurality^  or  a  col- 
lection of  elders.  This,  at  least,  it  does  mean  to  a  perfect  cer- 
tainty, and  the  attempt  to  make  any  thing  else  of  it  is  the 
merest  folly. 

Third.  How  was  this  presbytery,  which  ordained  Timothy, 
constituted?  Says  our  author,  after  having  sacrificed  the 
Ephesian  episcopate,  in  his  effort  to  evade  the  force  of  the  text 
in  its  bearings  on  the  question  now  pressing  him,  —  "  But  let 
us  take  another  view  of  the  passage.  Let  us  admit  that  the 
passage  in  question  does  refer  to  the  assembly  of  ordainers  — 
the  question  then  arises,  who  composed  this  presbytery?  It 
may  have  been  composed  only  of  apostles ;  for  we  know  that 
both  Peter  and  John  style  themselves  elders  or  presbyters^  and 
we  will  presently  show  beyond  a  doubt,  that  St.  Paul  was  a 
member  of  the  ordaining  body,  and  the  principal  actor." 

Let  the  reader  observe  that  Mr.  Schuyler  acknowledges  here, 
that  the  apostles  were  presbyters^  and  that  he  does  this  for  the 


186  THE  CHURCH, 

very  purpose  of  showing  that  the  presbytery  which  ordained 
Timothy  may  have  been  made  up  wholly  of  them.  That  is, 
he  admits  that  none  but  presbytei-s  could  have  been  members 
of  the  presbytery.  Of  coui-se  he  admits  this,  when  he  finds  it 
necessary  to  state  the  fact  that  the  apostles  were  presbyters,  in 
order  to  sustain  liis  supposition  that  the  presbytery  "  may  have 
been  composed  only  of  apostles."  Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  the 
utmost  indiiierence  to  us,  whether  all  who  composed  that  pres- 
bytery were  apostles,  or  whether  not  one  was  an  apostle.  Let 
it  go  at  that,  that  every  man  of  them  was  an  apostle.  What 
then  ?  Were  they  members  of  the  presbytery  as  apostles^  or 
as  presbyters?  Was  the  presbytery,  strictly  speaking,  a  body 
of  apostles,  r  was  it  a  body  of  presbyters?  —  We  care  not 
what  other  offices  the  persons  composing  this  presbyter}^  may 
have  held.  It  was  as  presbyters  that  they  constituted  a  pres- 
bytery, and  what  they  did  as  a  presbytery  they  did  in  their 
presbyterial  capacity,  and  in  no  other.  Timothy,  therefore,  was 
ordained  by  presbyters. 

If  Timothy  had  been  ordained  by  the  apostles,  as  such,  why 
does  not  Paul  say,  "The  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  a2)os- 
tlcs.^"  Why  does  he  say,  "With  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery,''^  unless  those  who  participated  in  this  trans- 
action did  so  in  the  character  of  presbyters  ?  Mr.  Barnes,  in 
his  notes  on  this  passage,  has  the  following  pertinent  remarks : 
"  The  statement  here  is  just  such  a  one  as  would  now  be  made 
respecting  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  It  is  7iot  one  which 
would  be  made  of  an  Episcopal  ordination.  A  Presbyterian 
would  choose  these  very  words,  in  giving  an  account  of  an 
ordination  to  the  work  of  the  ministry ;  an  Episcopalian  would 
not.  The  former  speaks  of  an  ordination  by  a  presbytery ; 
the  latter  of  an  ordination  by  a  bishop.  The  former  can  use 
the  account  of  the  apostle  Paul  here  as  applicable  to  an  ordi- 
nation, without  explanations,  comments,  new  versions,  or  criti- 
cisms; the  latter  can  not.     The  passage,  therefore,  is  full  of 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  187 

proof  that,  in  one  of  the  most  important  ordinations  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  was  performed  by  an  association  of 
men,  and  not  by  a  prelate,  and  therefore^  that  this  was  the 
primitive  mode  of  ordination."  The  passage,  I  may  add,  is 
full  of  proof  that  it  was  perforiied  by  an  association  of  men 
acting-  as  presbyters,  whatever  o'.her  ofiices  they  may  have  held, 
and  not  acting  in  any  other  capacity ;  and  therefore,  that  the 
primitive  mode  of  ordination  was  strictly  presbyterial,  and 
not  episcopal. 

Our  author  says,  "  Great  diversity  of  opinion  prevails  among 
the  advocates  of  parity,  as  to  the  persons  who  composed  this 
presbytery."  I  would  Hke  to  "mow  if  any  less  diversity  of 
opinion  prevails  among  the  advocates  of  imparity.  No  one 
knows  who  the  persons  were,  except  that  Paul  was  one  of 
them.  If  we  are  ignorant  as  to  who  the  persons  were,  we  are 
not  ignorant  as  to  what  they  were.  We  know  that  they  were 
all  presbyters,  from  the  fact  that  "uhey  were  constituent  members 
of  a  presbytery.  He  proposes  an  appeal  to  the  fathers,  and 
quotes  Ignatius  as  using  the  fohowing  language :  "  Fleeing  to 
the  apostles  as  the  presbytery  of  the  church."  Ignatius  here 
represents  the  apostles  as  exercising  the  chief  authority  in  the 
church,  which,  while  they  lived,  xhey  unquestionably  did.  But 
in  what  character  did  they  exercise  this  chief  authority  ?  As  a 
college  of  apostles  ?  No ;  as  a  presbytery.  It  was  as  presbyters 
that  they  ruled,  and  were  thus  a  refuge  for  the  distressed  and  the 
perplexed,  and  not  as  apostles.  We  thank  our  author  for 
helping  us  to  this  authority.  It  is  important,  as  going  to 
show,  that  not  in  ordination  merely,  but  in  government  also, 
the  apostles  always  acted  as  a  presbytery.  As  apostles  they 
were  witnesses  of  Christ,  but  it  was  as  presbyters  that  they 
ordained  ministers  and  governed  the  churches.  Our  author 
infers  from  the  words  of  Ignatius,  that  in  his  day  the  word 
presbytery  "  might  refer  to  a  body  of  apostles  alone."  We 
quite  agree  with  him.  It  is  a  fair  inference.  The  apostles, 
therefore,  were  presbyters  as  well  as  apostles.     He  (quotes  St. 


188  THE  CHURCH, 

Cliiysostom,  as  saying  on  this  passage  —  "  By  eldership,  (pres- 
bytery,) he  means,  not  presbyters  but  bishops,  for  presbyters 
did  not  ordain  bishops."  But  he  has  himself  acknowledged 
that  one  way  of  disposing  of  tte  text,  is  to  regard  it  as  teach- 
ing that  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the  presbyterate.  Will  he 
now  stultify  himself  by  proving  that  he  was  ordained  a  bishop  ? 
If  we  had  been  told  where  this  saying  of  Chrysostom  is  found, 
we  might  then  look  for  it,  and  see  whether  this  father  ever  used 
such  words.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  if  he  did  use  such 
words,  he  was  mistaken ;  for  it  is  absurd  to  say,  that  by  "  elder- 
shij) "  Paul  did  not  mean  elders.  We  might  as  well  be  told, 
that  by  the  membership  of  a  cliurch  is  not  meant  its  members. 
With  ail  due  respect  for  his  saintship,  Chrysostom  should  not 
have  written  nonsense,  if  he  expected  his  words  to  have 
authority  in  the  nineteenth  centiuy.  Theodoret  says,  —  we  are 
not  informed  where,  —  "  that  tlie  ministers  who,  with  St.  Paul, 
consecrated  Timothy,  were  those  who  were  vouchsafed  the 
favor  to  be  apostles."  We  hav3  said  already,  that  we  are  quite 
willing  to  have  it  so.  If  Theodoret  had  said,  that  it  was  as 
apostles  and  not  as  presbyters^  that  they  consecrated  Timothy, 
the  testimony  would  have  been  worth  contradicting ;  but  as  it 
stands,  we  are  quite  willing  that  it  should  stand. 

"  V/e  think  then,"  says  our  author,  "  we  may  safely  conclude 
that  the  probabilities  are,  that  apostles  composed  this  presby- 
tery ;  and  at  any  rate,  that  there  is  so  much  doubt  about  the 
meaning  of  the  term,  that  Presbyterians  build  upon  a  very  frail 
foundation,  when  they  alledge  this  passage  as  the  basis  on 
which  they  lay  their  claim  for  the  right  of  ordination  by  mere 
presbyters." 

Instead  of  laboring  to  show  that  apostles  composed  this 
presbytery,  the  true  point  for  him  to  elucidate  Avas,  that  they 
comjjosed  it  as  apostles,  and  not  as  presbyters.  He  owns  that 
they  were  j:>resbyters ;  why  will  he  not  allow  them  ever  to  act 
as  presbyters  ?  AVhy,  when  they  are  especially  said  by  inspira- 
tion itself,,  to  have  done  a  thing  as  a  presb}i:ery,  that  is,  as  an 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  189 

assembly  of  presbyters,  will  he  and  all  other  Episcopalians 
insist  ujjon  it^  that  tliey  did  it  as  apostles  ?  We  say  again,  we 
care  not  by  whom  Timothy  was  ordained,  so  long  as  he  was 
ordained  by  the  loreshytery.  A  frail  foundation,  is  it,  on  which 
to  lay  our  claim  for  the  right  of  ordination  by  mere  presbyters  ? 
Pray  tell  us  what  kind  of  a  foundation  it  is  then,  on  which  to 
lay  a  claim  for  the  right  of  ordination  by  those  who  are  not 
presbyters  ?  —  or  by  a  mere  diocesan  bishop  ?  Let  the  instance 
be  shown  in  the  New  Tescament,  where  the  act  of  ordination 
was  ever  performed  by  a  single  individual,  or  by  any  number 
of  individuals,  who  were  not  elders  ?  The  instance  can  not  be 
produced.  Did  Timothy  ordain  alone  at  Ephesus  ?  Prove  it. 
Or  Titus  in  Crete  ?  Prove  it.  Were  they  any  thing  more  than 
elders  in  the  character  of  tlieir  permanent  ministry  ?  Prove  it. 
These  assumptions,  we  thiak,  have  been  sufficiently  disposed  of 
on  a  former  occasion. 

Our  author's  argument  to  show  that  Paul  took  part  in 
Timothy's  ordination  migKt  have  been  spared.  We  cheerfully 
admit  it.  But  we  utterly  deny  that  Paul  was,  in  any  peculiar 
sense,  the  ordainer.  In  ^the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  he 
says  —  "  That  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  that  is  in  thee,  by 
the  laying  on  of  my  hands."  Mr.  S.  prints  the  word  "  my  "  in 
capitals,  and  then  adds, —  "Here,  then,  St.  Paul  expressly 
reminds  Timothy  of  the  fact  that  he  had  been  ordained  by 
lihn^  without  the  least  intimation  that  his  commission  had  been 
conferred  by  any  other."  '  Does  he,  then,  give  up  the  idea  that 
the  presbytery  may  have  been  composed  only  of  apostles  ? 

We  affirm  that  Paul,  as  a  presbyter,  acted  with  the  other 
presbyters  who  composed  the  presbytery.  Except  as  a  presby- 
ter, he  could  not  have  been  a  constituent  member  of  that  body ; 
for  a  presbytery,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  not  made  up  of 
presbyters  and  others,  —  but  of  presbyters  alone.  It  is  a  body 
of  presbyters  merely.  And  the  text  in  2  Timothy  is  in  per- 
fect consistency  with,  this  view  of  the  subject.  Says  Mr. 
Barnes,  in  commenting  on  this  place,  —  "  The  language  here 


190  THE  CH'JRCH, 

used,  'by  the  putting  on  of  my  Lands,'  is  just  such  as  Paul,  or 
any  other  one  of  the  presbyters,  would  use  in  referring  to  the 
ordination  of  Timothy,  though  tley  were  all  regarded  as  on  a 
level.  It  is  such  an  expression  as  an  aged  Presbyterian,  or 
Congregational,  or  Baptist  minister  would  address  to  a  son 
whom  he  had  assisted  to  ordair.  Nothing  would  be  more 
natural  than  to  remind  him  that  iis  own  hands  had  been  laid 
on  him  when  he  was  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  It 
would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  tender,  pathetic,  and  solemn 
appeal,  bringing  all  that  there  was  in  his  own  character,  age, 
and  relation  to  the  other,  to  bear  on  him,  in  order  to  induce 
him  to  be  faithful  to  his  trust.  Oa  other  occasions  he  would 
naturally  remind  him  that  others  lad  united  with  him  in  the 
act,  and  that  he  had  derived  his  authority  through  the  presby- 
tery, just  as  Paul  appeals  to  Timothy  —  1  Tim.  iv:  14.  But 
no  one  would  now  think  of  inferring  from  this,  that  he  meant 
to  be  understood  as  saying,  that  he  done  had  ordained  him,  or, 
that  all  the  authority  for  preaching  the  gospel  had  been 
imparted  through  his  hands,  and  ihat  those  who  were  asso- 
ciated with  him  only  expressed  concirrence ;  that  is,  that  their 
presence  there  was  only  an  unmeaning  ceremony. 

It  is  sometimes  pretended,  that  tliere  is  a  certain  peculiarity 
in  the  different  forms  of  expressior.  in  1  Tim.  iv:  14,  where 
the  presbytery  is  spoken  of,  and  in  2  Tim.  i :  6,  where  Paul 
speaks  of  himself  alone  as  acting  in  this  ordination.  In  the 
former  case,  it  is  "  meto,"  with  the  la}^ng  on,  &;c.  In  the  latter, 
it  is  "  c//a,"  by  the  putting  on,  &c.  This  is  a  very  poor  refuge ; 
for,  without  going  into  a  very  critical  examination  of  these 
Greek  prepositions,  "me^a"  and  "c?«t/.,"  I  am  persuaded  that 
no  scholar  will  insist  upon  a  distinction  between  them,  that  can 
be  made  to  avail  any  thing  in  help  of  the  Episcopal  argument. 
They  are  undoubtedly  prepositions,  which,  in  cases  like  the 
present  might  be  used  interchangeably,  as  conveying  precisely 
the  same  idea.  But  a  Greek  scholar,  in  looking:  at  1  Tim.  iv : 
1 4,  will  readily  see  why  the  apostle  chose  "  meta  "  there,  rather 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  191 

tlian  "  diaT  The  latter  preposition  had  been  used  the  instant 
before  with  propheteias,  (dia  propheteias,  hy  prophecy^  and 
it  was  partly  to  avoid  repetition  that  meta  was  used,  though 
not  for  this  purpose  alone.  Timothy  received  the  gift  by  pro- 
phecy. Tliere  had  been,  as  we  see  from  1  Tim.  i:  18,  certain 
predictions  going  before  respecting  him,  of  which,  particularly, 
we  are  not  informed.  But  he  was  regarded  as  a  person 
specially  designated,  by  the  prophetic  spirit,  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  He  was  looked  upon,  I  suppose  on  account  of  his 
peculiar  early  promise,  as  one  raised  up  and  especially  qualified 
of  God  to  be  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  prophets  in  the 
early  church  had  foretold  his  future  usefulness.  Now,  the  prep- 
osition "me^a"  was  chosen  as  better  than  "c?m"  for  repre- 
senting the  concurrence  of  the  presbytery  in  his  ordination 
with  the  prophecies  that  had  gone  before  respecting  him. 
"  The  gift  that  is  in  thee  hy  prophecy  with  the  laying  on,"  &c. 
The  "  c?m, "  that  precedes  propheteias,  truly  governs  all  that 
follows,  and  meta^  strictly  speaking,  is  not  a  governing,  but 
connecting  particle,  so  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  texts  in 
1  Timothy  and  2  Timothy  are  not  different,  — "  dia  "  being 
the   governing  preposition  in  both  cases. 

The  text  in  1  Timothy  declares,  that  he  was  ordained  by  the 
la}^ng  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  In  2  Timothy,  Paul 
says,  "  By  the  putting  of  my  hands." —  Now,  how  is  the  appa- 
rent contradiction  to  be  reconciled?  Can  it  be  done  by 
considering  the  literal  fact  as  expressed  in  the  second  epistle  ? 
No ;  for  that  would  make  the  assertion  in  the  first  epistle  false. 
If  the  ordination  was  really  effected  by  the  laying  on  of  Paul's 
hands,  then  the  presbytery,  as  such,  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
May  the  apparent  contradiction  be  reconciled  by  supposing  that 
the  literal  fact  is  expressed  in  the  first  epistle  ?  Yes ;  for  we 
have  seen  already,  that  in  that  case  there  would  be  no  impro- 
priety whatever  in  Paul's  saying,  "  By  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands."  It  would  be  a  natural  way  of  speaking,  and  just  such 
as  any  other  member  of   the  presbytery  might,  with  entire 


192  THE  CHURCH, 

propriety,  have  used.  Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  putting  on 
of  Paul's  hands,  though  not  by  the  putting  on  of  Paul's 
hands  alone. 

We  desire  our  author  carefully  to  read  what  we  have  now 
written,  and  then  to  say  frankly  whether  he  still  thinks  he  has 
so  "  satisfactorily  disposed  of  this  strong  passaged  It  seems 
to  us,  that  so  far  from  having  disposed  of  it,  as  he  imagines  he 
has  done,  his  attempt  to  do  so,  has  pretty  effectually  disposed 
of  him  and  of  his  cause. 

We  propose  now,  to  inquire  how  the  testimony  of  the  early 
fathers  bears  upon  this  question  respecting  the  right  to  ordain. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS  ON  THIS  SUBJECT. 

Presuming  that  it  will  not  be  denied  that  bishops  were 
invested  with  the  power  of  ordination,  it  is  directly  in  point  to 
show,  that  during  the  two  first  centuries  there  was  no  distinction, 
as  to  their  grade  of  office,  between  bishops  and  presbyters.  If 
this  can  be  made  satisfactorily  to  appear,  the  conclusion  will  be 
inevitable  that,  during  the  first  two  centuries,  presbyters  ordained. 

The  reader  is  already  aware,  that  by  the  admission  of  Epis- 
copalians themselves,  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  in 
the  New  Testament.  Thus,  Paul  having  assembled  the  pres- 
byters of  Ephesus  at  Miletus,  —  Acts  xx:  28,  —  addressed 
them  all  as  bishops,  and  exhorted  them  to  perform  with 
fidelity  the  duties  of  the  episcopal  office.  It  is  affirmed,  how- 
ever, that  immediately  after  the  New  Testament  times  the 
mode  of  expression  was  changed,  and  that  wherever  the  word 
bishop  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers,  it  has  a 
meaning  essentially  different  from  that  which  it  has  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostles, —  standing  for  a  minister,  Hke  the 
modern  diocesan  prelate,  distinct  from  presbyters  in  the  grade 
of  his  office,  and  superior  to  them.  Apart  from  the  e\'idence 
of  the  writings  themselves,  the  only  ancient  authority  adduced 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  193 

for  such  a  change  is  Theodoret,  who  flourished  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  fourth  century,  the  inadequacy  of  whose  testimony  must 
be  apparent  to  every  one,  because  he  does  not  specify  the  period 
at  which  the  change  took  place,  but  only  says,  that  it  was 
introduced  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  "  in  process  of  time." 
Theodoret  testifies  to  nothing  which  we  do  not  know  from  other 
sources.     No  one  can  read  the  fathers  in  succession  down  to  his 
time,  and  not  discover  for  himself,  how,  with  "the  process  of 
time,"  after  the   year  200,  the  system  of  prelacy  gradually 
developed  itself,  and  the  term  bishop  acquired,  by  usage,  its  new 
and  unscriptural  meaning.    Now,  I  desire  to  show,  by  numerous 
quotations,  that  this  change  was  not  introduced  until  after  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  and  that  up  to  that  time,  pres- 
byters and   bishops  were,   as    in    the  times    of   the    apostles 
themselves,  of  one  grade,  and  had  the  same  powers. 

I  may  state  here,  that  for  my  quotations  from  the  ancient 
fathers,  I  am  mainly  indebted  to  Coleman's  "  Christian  Anti- 
quities" and  "Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,"  to  Eusebius, 
and  to  the  ecclesiastical  histories  of  Neander  and  Gieseler. 

I  cite  first,  the  testimony  of  Clement,  who  wrote  about  A.  D. 
96.     His  epistle,  written  in  the  name  of  the  church  at  Rome  to 
the  church  at  Corinth,  is  the  earliest  and  most  authentic  of  all 
the  writings  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  and  was  held  in  such 
high  esteem  by  the  early  christians,  that  it  was  publicly  read 
for  the  common  benefit  in  their  assembhes,  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  sacred  scriptures, —  See  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  3,  c.  16. 
No  ancient  writing  of  its  class  is  of  comparable  authority  with 
historians.     This  father,  in  his  entire  epistle,  mentions  but  two 
grades  of  officers  in  the  church,  bishops  and  deacons;  his  style 
being  precisely  similar  to  that  of  the  New  Testament  writers. 
No  intimation  can  be  gathered  from  him  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  person  at  Corinth  as  a  prelate;  but  he  invariably  speaks 
of  the  presbyters  who  had  been  rejected  by  that  church,  as 
persons  holding  the  highest  ministerial  rank.     He  says, —  Epist. 
sec.  42,  p.  57, — "  Preaching  therefore  in  countries  and  cities, 
10 


194  THE  CHURCH, 

they,  i.  e.  the  apostles,  appointed  the  first  fruits  of  their  labors, 
having,  by  the  spirit,  judged  them  worthy,  bishops  and  deacons 
of  them  that  should  believe."  These,  according  to  Clement, 
are  the  two  offices  in  the  church,  as  it  was  originally  consti- 
tuted by  the  apostles. 

"  It  were  a  great  sin  in  us,"  he  says, —  Sec.  44,  p.  58,  "  if  we 
should  reject  those  who  have  blamelessly  and  piously  discharged 
the  functions  of  the  episcopal  ofiice ; "  and  immediately  adds, 
"  blessed  are  those  presbyters,  who,  having  finished  their  course, 
have  obtained  their  final  deliverance  and  reward."  Will  it  be 
denied  that  he  here  identifies,  as  one  and  the  same  class  of  per- 
sons, presbyters  and  those  who  discharged  the  functions  of  the 
episcopal  office? 

Says  Riddle,  —  Christ.  Antiq.  page  5,  comp.  Waddington's 
Church  Hist,  page  35,  and  Campbell's  Lectures,  page  72, — 
"  Clement,  himself,  was  not  even  aware  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween presbyters  and  bishops,  —  terms  which,  in  fact,  he  used 
as  synonymous." 

The  next  witness  is  Polycarp,  who,  we  are  informed,  was 
familiar  with  those  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  is  commonly 
supposed  to  have  been  the  angel  of  the  church  at  Smyrna,  Rev. 
ii:  8.  His  testimony  agrees  exactly  with  Clement's.  He 
knows  of  but  two  gi'ades  of  officers  in  the  church,  presbyters 
and  deacons.  In  his  whole  epistle  he  does  not  once  use  the 
word  "  bishop,"  but  represents  the  presbyters  as  exercising  all 
authority  in  the  church,  and  discharging  all  ministerial  func- 
tions, without  affording  the  least  intimation  of  any  one  being 
placed  over  them,  or  having  authority  superior  to  theirs. 

The  salutation  of  his  epistle  is  as  follows :  "  Polycarp  and  the 
presbyters  with  him,  to  the  church  of  God,  dwelling  at  Philippi, 
mercy  to  you,"  &c.  He  was  undoubtedly  the  president  of  the 
church  at  Smyrna,  i.  e.  the  elder  whom  the  church  had  chosen 
to  occupy  the  first  place,  and  to  conduct  public  worship ;  in 
other  words,  their  pastor,  or  if  you  please,  in  the  scriptural  sense, 
their  bishop. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  195 

He  exhorts  the  Pliilippians  to  "  he  subject  to  their  presbyters 
and  deacons;  "  an  exhortation  singularly  inappropriate,  if  the 
government  of  their  church  had  been  committed  to  a  bishop. 
In  the  fifth  and  sixth  chapters  he  describes  the  qualifications 
necessary  for  presbyters  and  deacons,  without  any  allusion  to 
any  higher  office. 

The  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Philippians  is  addressed  "  to  all 
the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the 
bishops  and  deacons"  He  recognizes  two  grades  of  officers 
there,  and  only  two, — bishops,  universally  conceded  to  have  been 
simple  presbyters,  and  deacons.  Polycarp,  like  Clement,  recog- 
nizes the  same,  showing  that  in  his  time,  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  there  had  been  no  change.  Things  re- 
mained precisely  as  they  were,  at  the  time  when  Episcopalians 
themselves  confess  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  convertible 
terms. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  was  cotemporary  with  Polycarp,  gires 
testimony  to  the  same  effect.  He  describes — Apol.  i,  c.  65,  p. 
82,  also,  c.  67,  p.  83  —  the  mode  of  conducting  public  worship 
and  of  administering  the  Lord's  supper  in  his  time.  In  these 
accounts,  no  officers  appear  but  the  "  president  of  the  brethren," 
officiating  as  minister,  and  the  deacons,  who  distribute  the  ele- 
ments of  bread  and  wine  to  the  communicants.  This  president 
i^proestos,)  is  the  person  claimed  by  Episcopalians,  if  any  one 
can  be,  as  the  prelatic  bishop.  But  there  is  no  gi-ound,  what- 
ever, for  such  an  opinion.  His  duties  are  those  of  a  mere 
pastor,  and  Justin  says  not  one  word  which  can  possibly  be  so 
construed,  as  to  make  any  tiling  more  of  him  than  the  officiat- 
ing presbyter.  He  is  distinguished  from  the  deacons,  but  from 
no  other  class  of  officers  in  the  church.  Says  Milton,  —  prose 
works,  Griswold's  edition,  vol.  1,  p.  37 — "But  that  place  of 
Justin  Martyr,  serves  rather  to  convince  the  author,  than  to 
make  for  him,  where  the  name  '■  2^'t^oestos  ton  adelphon^  the 
president  or  pastor  of  the  brethren,  (for  to  what  end  is  he  their 
president  but  to  teach  them  ?)  can  not  be  limited  to  signify  a 


196  THE  CHURCH, 

prelatical  bishop,  but  ratber  communicates  tbat  Greek  appella- 
tion to  every  ordinary  presbyter ;  for  there  he  tells  what  the 
christians  had  wont  to  do  in  their  several  congregations, — ^to  read 
and  expound,  to  pray  and  administer ;  all  which,  he  says,  the 
jproestos,  or  antistes,  did.  Are  these  the  offices  only  of  a 
bishop,  or  shall  we  think  that  every  congregation,  where  these 
things  were  done,  which  he  attributes  to  this  antistes,  had  a 
bishop  present  among  them  ?  —  unless  they  had  as  many  an- 
tistites  as  presbyters,  which  this  place  rather  seems  to  imply ; 
and  so  we  may  infer,  even  from  their  own  alledged  authority, 
*  that  antistes  was  nothing  else  than  presbyter.' 

Ireneus,  who  died  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  third 
century,  uses  the  terms  "  bishop  "  and  "  presbyter  "  interchange- 
abl , ,  as  ha\dng  the  same  meaning.  Speaking  of  Marcion, 
Valentinus,  Cerinthus,  and  other  heretics,  he  says  —  Adv.  Haer. 
L.  3,  c.  2,  sec.  2  — "  When  we  refer  them  to  that  apostolic 
tradition,  which  is  preserved  in  the  churches,  through  the  suc- 
cession of  their  presbyters^  these  men  oppose  the  tradition; 
pretending  that,  being  more  wise  than  not  only  the  presbyters 
but  the  apostles  themselves,  they  have  found  the  uncorrupted 
truth."  Let  it  be  observed,  that  here  the  tradition  from  the 
apostles  is  spoken  of  as  preserved  through  the  succession  of 
presbyters.  In  the  very  next  section,  pursuing  the  same  sub- 
ject, he  styles  these  same  presbyters  bishops.  He  says  —  "  We 
can  enumerate  those  who  were  constituted  by  the  apostles 
bishops  in  the  churches,  and  their  successors,  even  down  to  our 
time.  But  because  it  would  be  tedious,  in  such  a  volume  as 
this,  to  enumerate  the  successions  in  all  the  churches,  showing 
you  the  tradition  and  declared  faith,"  &c.  It  is  thus  evident 
that  Ireneus  still  used  the  term  "bishop"  in  the  scriptural 
sense,  and  that  so  late  as  his  time  presbyter  and  bishop  were 
synonymous  words. 

Again,  —  Eusebius,  book  5,  ch.  20  —  Ireneus  calls  Polycarp 
bishop,  and  yet  uses  concerning  him  the  following  language : 
"  And  I  can  bear  witness  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  if  that 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  197 

blessed  and  apostolic  presbyter  had  heard  any  such  thing  as 
this,"  &c. 

Again.  Irenens  says,  —  L.  4,  c.  26,  pp.  262,  263  —  "We 
ought  to  obey  those  preshyters  in  the  church,  who  have  succes- 
sion, as  we  have  shown,  from  the  apostles;  who,  with  the 
succession  of  the  episcopate,  received  the  certain  gift  of  truth, 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  father. 

"  And  truly,  they  who  by  many  are  regarded  as  preshyters, 
but  serve  their  own  pleasures,  and  not  having  the  fear  of  God 
in  their  hearts,  but  elated  with  the  pride  of  their  exaltation  to 
the  chief  seat,  commit  wickedness  in  secret,  saying,  no  one 
seeth  us  —  they  shall  be  convicted.  From  all  such  we  ought 
to  withdraw,  and  as  we  have  said,  to  adhere  to  those  who 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  and  who,  with  the 
order  of  the  preshytership  preserve  sound  doctrine,  and  a 
blameless  conversation  for  the  confirmation  and  reproof  of 
others." 

Again — L.  4,  c.  26,  sec.  1 — he  says,  that  "they  who 
cease  to  serve  the  church  in  the  ministry,  ai*e  a  reproach  to  the 
sacred  order  of  the  presbyters."*  The  same  persons  in  the 
immediate  context  are  called  "  hishopsP 

In  his  letter  to  Victor,  at  Rome,  —  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  5) 
c.  20  —  he  speaks  of  the  preshyters  who  had  presided  over 
the  church  in  that  city  before  that  bishop,  and  of  one  particu- 
larly, Anicetus,  whom  Polycarp  had  urged  in  vain  to  "  retain 
the  usage  of  the  presbyters  who  had  preceded  him." 

These  quotations  from  Ireneus  do  not  require  to  be  com- 
mented upon.  Their  testimony  is  plain  and  directly  to  the 
point.  They  definitely  settle  the  question  that,  in  his  time, 
nothing  was  known  of  an  episcopal  order  in  the  ministry,  dis- 
tinct from  presbyters  and  above  them.  The  presbyters  them- 
selves, according  to  New  Testament  usage,  are  represented  as 
bishops,  having,  as  Presbyterians  maintain,  the  true  "  succession 
from  the  a;  ostles,  who  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate. 
have  receive  I  the  certain  gift  of  truth."     Our  adversaries  may 


198  THE  CHURCH, 

attempt,  with  tlieir  glosses,  to  avert  the  force  of  this  witness 
against  them,  but  they  cannot  explain  away  the  fact  which  he 
asserts  in  so  many  ways,  that,  in  his  day,  there  was  no  distinction 
between  the  episcojDal  and  the  presbyterial  order. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  A.  D.  194,  illustrating  another  sub- 
ject by  the  ministry  of  the  christian  church,  says  —  Paedag., 
Lib.,  3,  p.  264  —  "Just  so  in  the  church,  the  presbyters  are 
entrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry;  the  deacons,  with  the 
subordinate."  Does  he  know  of  any  other  order  of  officers 
than  those  which  he  here  names  ?  How  singular  would  be  his 
manner  of  speaking,  if  there  were  an  episcopal  order  above, 
and  distinct  from,  those  whom  he  describes  as  "  entrusted  with 
the  dignified  ministry." 

This  father,  in  his  treatise  —  "  What  rich  man  can  be  saved  ? " 
chapter  42,  pp.  667-669,  relates  —  that  the  apostle  John,  being 
deeply  interested  in  the  singular  beauty  of  a  young  man,  whom 
he  on  one  occasion  observed  in  a  christian  assembly,  turned  in 
the  presence  of  the  church  and  commended  him  "  to  the  bishop 
who  presided  over  all^^  with  strict  charge  that  he  should 
watch  over  him,  and  be  responsible  for  his  safety.  The  narra- 
tive then  informs  us  that  ^''this  presbyter''''  took  the  young 
man  to  his  own  house,  and  endeavored  to  discharge  the  duty 
which  the  apostle  had  enjoined  upon  him.  The  young  man 
afterward  was  seduced  from  his  protector,  and  lost.  John,  on 
his  return,  addressed  this  presbyter  as  a  bishop^  saying,  "0 
bishop,  restore  to  us  your  charge."  Here  again,  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  are  used  interchangeably. 

Tertullian,  cotemporary  with  the  last  witness,  both  having 
died  the  same  year,  A.  D.  220,  describes  the  worship  of  chris- 
tian assemblies  in  terms  very  similar  to  those  employed  by 
Justin.  He  says  —  ApoL,  c.  59  —  "Certain  approved  elders 
preside,  who  have  obtained  that  honor,  not  by  price,  but  by 
the  e\idence  of  their  fitness."  He  says  —  De  Corona.,  c.  3, 
p.  102  —  'We  never  take  from  the  hands  of  others  than 
presidents,  prcesidentium,   the   sacrament   of    the   eucharist." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  199 

This  president  is  beyond  dispute  identical  with  Justin  Martyr's 
2'>roestos;  and  we  are  thus  informed  distinctly,  that  the  proestos 
was  an  approved  elder^  chosen  by  the  people,  for  his  fitness^ 
to  be  their  minister. 

Can  any  candid  person  examine  these  testimonies,  and  have 
a  doubt  remaining,  that  for  the  first  two  centuries,  at  least,  the 
term  "  bishop "  retained  in  the  church  its  scriptural  meaning, 
and  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same  ?  I  see  no  way 
for  an  honest  denial  of  these  facts.  If  then,  during  these  two 
centuries,  bishops  ordained,  it  is  but  another  form  of  saying  that 
presbyters  did  so. 

Jerome^  who  flourished  in  the  fifth  century,  asserts  what  I 
have  now  established,  by  cotemporary  authorities,  as  an  histo- 
rical fact,  which  in  his  time  could  not  be  disputed.  In  his 
commentary  on  Titus  i :  5,  he  sets  forth,  in  the  most  forcible 
manner,  the  scripture  doctrine  on  this  subject  of  the  equality  of 
presbyters  with  bishops,  and  adds,  "  Our  intention  in  these 
remarks  is  to  show,  that  among  the  ancients,  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  the  very  same,  but  that  by  little  and  little,  i^pau- 
latim)  that  the  plants  of  dissensions  might  be  plucked  up, 
the  whole  concern  was  devolved  upon  an  individual.  As  the 
presbyters  therefore  hiow  that  they  are  subjected  by  the  custom 
of  the  church,  to  him  who  is  set  over  them,  so  let  the  bishops 
know  that  they  ai-e  greater  than  presbyters,  more  by  custom 
than  by  any  real  appointment  of  ChristP 

Mr.  Schuyler  has  endeavored  —  pp.  95,  96,  97, —  to  do  away 
with  this  testimony,  by  affirming,  that  the  change  of  which 
Jerome  speaks,  took  place  in  the  apostles'  time,  and  must  there- 
fore have  been  approved  of  by  them.  But  how  utterly  inconsis- 
tent is  this  with  the  fact,  that  it  is  on  the  very  authority  of  the 
apostles  themselves,  in  their  writings,  that  Jerome  grounds  his 
argument  for  the  original  equality  of  bishops  and  presbyters. 
Let  it  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  that  the 
change  of  which  Jerome  testifies,  was  introduced  in  their 
day.     I  know  that  the  phrase,  " little  by  littUj^  (paulatim,)  is 


200  THE  CHURCH, 

indefinite  as  to  time^  but  it  is  not  indefinite  as  to  the  fact, 
which  alone  is  important,  that  the  change  was  not  brought  about 
by  authority^  but  that  it  came  in  gradually^  as  all  new  customs  do. 
The  testimony  of  this  father  is  clear  and  explicit  in  regard  to 
the  main  thing,  that,  according  to  the  original  constitution  of 
the  church,  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same,  and  that  the 
distinction  between  them,  which  prevailed  in  his  age,  was  not 
by  divine  appointment,  but  a  human  invention  for  the  cure  of 
schism. 

Admissions  from  distinguished  Episcopalians  on  this  point 
might  be  furnished  to  almost  any  extent,  but  it  is  not  necessary. 

It  may  be  expected  that  I  shall  ofier  some  positive  and  direct 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  practice  of  ordination  by  presbyters 
in  the  early  church. 

Says  Dr.  Miller, —  see  his  letters,  page  108, — "The  friends  of 
prelacy  have  often,  and  with  much  apparent  confidence,  chal- 
lenged us  to  produce  out  of  all  the  early  fathers,  a  single 
instance  of  an  ordinatio7i  performed  by  presbyters.  Those  who 
give  this  challenge  might  surely  be  expected  in  all  decency  and 
justice,  to  have  a  case  of  Episcopal  ordination  ready  to  be 
brought  forward  from  the  same  venerable  records.  But  have 
they  ever  produced  such  a  case  ?  They  have  not.  Nor  can 
they  produce  it.  As  there  is  unquestionably  no  instance  men- 
tioned in  scripture,  of  any  person  with  the  title  of  bishop 
performing  an  ordination ;  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  no  such 
instance  has  been  found  in  any  christian  writer  within  the  first 
two  centunes.  Nor  can  a  single  instance  be  produced  of  a 
person,  already  ordained  as  a  presbyter,  receiving  a  new  and 
second  ordination  as  a  bishop.  To  find  a  precedent  favorable 
to  their  doctrine,  the  advocates  of  episcopacy  have  been  under 
the  necessity,  of  wandering  into  periods,  when  the  simplicity  of 
the  gospel,  had,  in  a  considerable  degree,  given  place  to  the 
devices  of  men ;  and  when  the  man  of  sin  had  commenced 
that  system  of  unhallowed  usurpation,  which  for  so  many 
centuries  corrupted  and  degraded  the  church  of  God." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  201 

What  Episcopalians  can  not  produce  for  their  system,  we 
can  for  ours. 

Fermilian^  writing  from  Asia  Minor  to  Cyprian  in  Car- 
thage, A.  D.  256,  in  exj^Ianation  of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the 
churches  there,  says  —  Cyp.  Epist.  75,  p.  145,  —  "All  power 
and  grace  is  vested  in  the  church,  where  the  presbyters  preside, 
who  have  authority  to  baptize,  to  impose  hands,  (in  the  recon- 
ciling of  penitents)  and  to  ordain^  On  this,  Coleman  remarks, 
"  The  episcopal  hierarchy  was  not  fully  established  in  these 
eastern  churches,  so  early  as  in  the  western.  Accordingly  we 
find  the  presbyters  here,  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  original 
right  to  ordain.  The  general  tenor  of  the  letter,  in  connection 
with  this  passage,  exhibits  the  popular  government  of  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  as  yet  continuing  among  the  churches  in  Asia. 
The  highest  authority  is  vested  in  the  members  of  the  church, 
who  still  administer  their  own  government.  No  restrictions 
have  yet  been  laid  upon  the  presbyters  in  the  administration  of 
ordinances.  Whatever  clerical  grace  is  essential  for  the  right 
administration  of  baptism,  of  consecration,  and  of  ordination,  is 
still  retained  by  the  presbyters." 

The  author  of  the  commentaries  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
either  Ambrose  or  Hilary,  more  probably  the  latter,  says  —  on 
Eph.  iv:  11,  12, —  "  The  apostle  calls  Timothy,  created  by  him 
a  presbyter,  a  bishop,  for  the  first  presbyters  were  called  bishops, 
that  when  he  departed,  the  one  that  came  next  might  succeed 
him.  Moreover,  in  Egypt  the  presbyters  confirm,  if  a  bishop 
be  not  present.  But  because  the  presbyters  that  followed 
began  to  be  found  unworthy  to  hold  the  primacy,  the  custom 
was  altered ;  the  council  foreseeing  that  not  order  but  merit, 
ought  to  make  a  bishop ;  and  that  he  should  be  appointed  by 
the  judgment  of  many  priests,  lest  an  unworthy  person  should 
rashly  usurp  the  office,  and  be  a  scandal  to  many." 

It  must  be  admitted,  that  according  to  the  understanding  of 
this  author,  one  made  a  presbyter,  by  the  apostolical  rule, 
needed  no  other  ordination  in  order  to  assume  the  functions  of 
10* 


202  THE  CHURCH, 

tlie  episcopal  office,  and  that  the  highest  presbyter  in  any 
church,  was  ipso  facto,  its  bishop,  until  in  later  times  a  different 
custom  was  introduced. 

The  same  author  says  again,  —  on  1  Tim.  iii :  8, —  "  After 
the  bishop,  the  apostle  has  subjoined  the  ordination  (order)  of 
the  deaconship.  Why,  but  that  the  ordination  (order)  of  a 
bishop  and  presbyter,  is  one  and  the  same  ?  for  each  is  a  priest, 
but  the  bishop  is  chief,  so  that  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  but 
not  every  presbyter  a  bishop.  For  he  is  bishop  who  is  chief 
among  the  presbyters.  Moreover,  he  notices  that  Timothy  was 
ordained  a  presbyter,  but  inasmuch  as  he  had  no  other  above 
him,  he  was  a  bishop."*^  Hence  he  shows  that  Thnothy,  a  pres- 
byter, might  ordain  a  bishop,  because  of  his  equality  with  him. 
"  For  it  was  neither  lawful  nor  right  for  an  inferior  to  ordain 
a  superior,  inasmuch  as  one  can  not  confer  what  he  has  not 
received. 

On  this,  and  other  similar  authorities,  Coleman  remarks, — 
Apost.  and  Prim.  Church, p.  182, —  "The  full  sacerdotal  power 
is  possessed  by  every  presbyter,  according  to  the  authority  of 
the  earliest  fathers.  The  apostolical  fathers  know  no  distinction 
between  bishops  and  presbyters;  and  later  ones  make  no  differ- 
ence in  their  order  or  grade  of  rank.  The  distinction  of  bishop 
is  only  a  conventional  arrangement,  made  for  mutual  conve- 
nience, but  in  no  wise  incapacitating  the  presbyter  for  the  per- 
formance of  any  of  his  sacerdotal  offices.  The  right  to  ordain 
still  belongs  to  him ;  and  the  bishop,  when  selected  to  preside 
over  his  fellow-presbyters,  receives  no  new  consecration  or 
ordination,  but  continues  himself  to  ordain  as  a  presbyter. 

"  Such  is  a  plain  statement  of  this  controverted  point,  and 
such  the  exposition  which  many  Episcopal  writers,  even  at  the 
present  day,  give  of  this  subject.  But  if  the  delusive  doctrine 
of  divine  right  and  apostolical  succession  be  given  up,  the  valid- 
ity of  presbyterian  ordination  is  conceded.  Such  Episcopalians, 
therefore,  themselves,  afford  us  the  fullest  refutation  of  the 
absurd  and  arrogant  pretensions  of  high  church  episcopacy." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  203 

Jerome^  in  his  famous  epistle  to  Evagriiis,  or  Evangeliis, 
rebukes  with  great  severity  those  who  had  preferred  deacons  in 
honor,  "  above  presbyters^  i.  e.  bishops^  Having  thus  asserted 
the  identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops,  he  goes  on  to  prove  his 
position  by  Phil,  i:  1,  Acts  xx:  17,  28,  Titus  i:  5,  1  Tim.  iv: 
14,  and  1  Pet.  v:  1.  He  says, — "Does  the  testimony  of  these 
men  seem  of  small  account  to  you  ?  Then  clangs  the  gospel 
trumpet, —  that  son  of  thunder  whom  Jesus  so  much  loved,  and 
who  drank  at  the  fountain  of  truth  from  the  Saviour's  breast. 
'  The  presbyter  to  the  elect  lady  and  her  children,' —  2  John 
i :  1 ;  and  in  another  epistle,  '  The  Presbyter  to  the  well-beloved 
Gains,' —  3  John  i:  1. 

"  As  to  the  fact,  that  afterward,  one  was  elected  to  preside 
over  the  rest,  this  was  done  as  a  remedy  against  schism ;  lest 
every  one  drawing  his  proselytes  to  himself,  should  rend  the 
church  of  Christ;  for  even  at  Alexandria,  from  the  evangehst 
Mark  to  the  bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters 
always  chose  one  of  their  number,  placed  him  in  a  superior 
station,  and  called  him  bisho]),  in  the  same  manner  as  if  an 
army  should  make  an  emperor,  or  the  deacons  should  choose 
one  of  their  number,  whom  they  knew  to  be  particularly 
active,  and  should  call  him  archdeacon;  for,  excepting  ordina- 
tion, what  is  done  by  a  bishop,  that  may  not  be  done  by  a 
presbyter  ?  " 

The  bishop,  then,  received  his  authority  from  the  presbyters. 
They  made  him.  All  the  ordination  that  he  had  from  any 
source,  he  had  from  them,  and  such,  Jerome  tells  us,  was  the 
usage  "m  every  country T 

As  to  the  question,  — "  For  excepting  ordination,  what  is 
done  by  a  bishop  that  may  not  be  done  by  a  presbyter  ?  "  The 
reader  will  perceive  that  he  is  referring  to  a  distinction  of 
official  powers  that  had  obtained  in  his  time,  and  arguing 
from  the  fact  that  no  other  distinction  was  then  recognized, 
for  the  original  identity  of  the  episcopal  and  presbyterial 
offices.     It  is  equivalent  therefore,  to  the  strongest  kind  of  an 


204  THE   CHURCH, 

affirmation,  that  originally,  ordination  was  one  of  the  functions 
of  presbyters. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Jerome  flourished  near  the  latter 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  at  which  time,  it  is  well  known  that 
Episcopal  usurpations  had  almost  universally  crowded  out  tho 
primitive  order  of  church  polity.  He  wrote  against  the  very 
same  prelatical  assumptions  that  we  complain  of  and  protest 
against.  Bishops  had  begun  to  assume  exclusive  rights  as  a 
distinct  and  higher  order  of  the  christian  ministry,  to  claim 
that  the  apostolical  succession  was  with  them  alone,  and  to 
assert  authority,  as  if  they  themselves  were  apostles,  over  other 
ministers.  Against  these  claims,  utterly  without  foundation  in 
the  scriptures,  or  in  the  history  of  the  church,  this  learned 
father,  second  to  none  of  that  age,  hurls  his  indignant  rebukes, 
and  teaches  the  bishops  that  their  order,  as  distinct  from  pres- 
byters, was  of  recent  date,  founded  on  no  divine  appointment, 
but  merely  on  a  custom  of  the  church;  and  that,  in  point  of 
fact,  they  were  nothing  more  or  better,  in  the  actual  grade  of 
their  ministry  than  presbyters,  having  no  right  whatever  which 
the  presbyters  had  not  conceded  to  them. 

Coleman  says  truly, —  Apost.  and  Prim.  Church,  p.  189, — 
"  The  rights  of  presbyters  to  ordain,  and  the  validity  of  pres- 
byterian  ordination  were  never  called  in  question,  until  the 
bishops  began,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  to  assert 
the  doctrine  of  the  apostolical  succession." 

We  ask  from  our  Episcopal  brethren,  clear  evidence  from  the 
first  two  centuries,  that  there  was  any  recognized  distinction 
between  bishops  and  presbyters,  as  to  the  grade  of  their  min- 
istry. A  mere  blazoning  of  the  name  "  bishop,"  they  must  see, 
can  be  of  no  avail  in  this  argument.  We  know  well  enough 
that  there  Avere  those  who  were  called  bishops,  but  what  is 
that  to  us,  or  what  weight  can  it  have  in  this  dispute.  Let 
them  prove  that  these  bishops  were  any  thing  more  than  the 
pastors  of  the  churches,  the  presiding  presbyters.  Let  them 
prove  that  they  belonged  to  a  distinct  and  pecuhar  order;  that 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  205 

being  presbyters,  they  were  made  bishops  by  a  new  ordina- 
tion. They  know  that  they  can  not  prove  this.  It  is  all  in 
vain  to  challenge  them  to  the  proof  of  it.  All  that  they  can 
give  us,  is  the  testimony  of  hierarchists  like  themselves,  who 
lived  in  those  later  times,  when  episcopacy  had  become  gene- 
rally prevalent ;  testimony  which  we  value  no  more  than  we 
do  that  of  hierarchists  living  now.  If  they  can  not  give  the 
proof  for  which  we  ask,  it  is  absurd  for  them,  in  the  face  of 
proof  which  we  bring,  to  deny,  that  in  the  times  referred  to, 
presbyters  ordained,  and  that  by  the  original  constitution  of  the 
church,  they  were  the  sole  ordainers. 

Among  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries,  our  opponents 
rely  almost  exclusively  on  Ignatius.  That  the  real  value  of  this 
father's  testimony  may  be  understood,  I  refer  the  reader  to  the 
article  headed  "  The  Ignatian  Epistles,"  in  my  notice  of  Mr. 
Schuyler's  appendix.  Among  all  the  early  christian  writers, 
no  one  is  so  little  to  be  relied  upon  as  a  witness.  I  do  not 
mean  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  Ignatius,  but  it  is  notorious 
that  forgeries  innumerable  have  been  committed  upon  his 
name,  and  that  his  genuine  works  have  been  so  obscured  by 
interpolations,  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  know  what  was 
written  by  him,  and  what  was  not.  Of  the  seven  epistles  now 
ascribed  to  him,  four  are  certainly  doubtful^  and  recent  evidence 
has  been  discovered  which  seems  likely  to  divest  them  even  of 
the  little  authority  which  they  have  hitherto  had.  Neverthe- 
less, let  us  examine  our  author's  authorities  from  this  father,  and 
see  what,  even  admitting  their  genuineness,  is  their  real  value 
to  his  cause. 

First,  he  quotes  from  the  epistles  to  the  Magnesians : 
"  Seeing  then  that  I  have  been  judged  worthy  to  see  you,  by 
Damas,  your  most  excellent  bishop,  and  by  your  very  worthy 
presbyters,  Bassus  and  Apollonius,  and  by  my  fellow-servant 
Sotio,  the  deacon,  in  whom  I  rejoice,  forasmuch  as  he  is  subject 
unto  his  bishop,  as  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  the  presbytery 
as  to  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ ;  I  determined  to  write  unto  you." 


206  THE  CHURCH, 

Now,  will  my  brother  so  impose  upon  himself  and  his  readers, 
as  to  maintain  that  because,  in  the  church  of  the  Magnesians 
there  was  a  person  whom  they  styled  " bishop"  with  others 
whom  they  called  ^'presbyters'''  and  a  deacon^  that  therefore 
the  Magnesians  had  the  episcopal  government,  as  he  under- 
stands it!  Was  that  bishop  a  prelate?  was  he  of  an  order 
distinct  from  the  presbyters  ?  This  is  just  the  way  in  which 
our  brethren  of  the  episcopal  faith  are  ever  reasoning.  When 
the  writings  of  the  apostles  in  the  New  Testament  are  con- 
sidered, they  have  a  boundless  contempt  for  names.  Then 
they  look  at  things  and  at  nothing  but  things ;  but  the  very  mo- 
ment they  come  to  the  fathei's,  names  become  all-important^ 
and  for  things  they  care  nothing  at  all.  There  is  absolutely 
nothing  in  this  passage  from  Ignatius,  which  can  be  tortured 
into  a  significancy  adverse  to  our  doctrine,  that,  in  the  time  of 
this  father,  one  elder,  chosen  by  the  people,  was  the  minister  of 
the  church  under  the  name  of  president^  or  bishop^  with  no 
distinction  in  his  grade  of  office,  from  the  other  presbyters. 

In  my  sermon,  I  quoted  Ignatius  as  commending  subjection 
"  to  the  presbytery  as  to  the  law  of  Christ,''^  in  proof  that  pres- 
byters, in  his  day,  held  the  supreme  authority  in  the  church. 
I  refer  the  reader  again  to  those  very  words  in  the  passage 
above  cited  by  Mr.  Schuyler,  as  proving  what  I  affirmed  in  my 
sermon  that  they  proved.  Who  composed  the  presbytery  ? 
All  the  presbytei-s,  undoubtedly,  including  him  —  who,  as  the 
minister  or  presiding  elder,  was  called  bishop.  Will  our  author 
deny  that  the  supreme  authority  was  vested  in  that  body  ? 

Ignatius  commends  Sotio,  the  deacon,  for  being  "  subject  unto 
his  bishop,  as  to  the  grace  of  God."  The  bishop,  as  such,  is 
here  spoken  of  as  the  pastor  or  spiritual  teacher,  and  not  as 
the  ruler.  The  words  can  not  bear  any  other  interpretation. 
Sotio  was  subject  to  his  bishop  as  a  spiritual  teacher,  but  "  to 
the  presbytery  "  (not  presbyters,  as  Mr.  Schuyler  has  printed 
it,  through  mistake,  I  suppose,)  "  as  to  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Where  did  Ignatius  understand  the  government  to  be  ?     Not 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  207 

in  the  bishop,  but  in  the  'presbytery.  This  is  so  plain,  that  it 
can  not  be  reasonably  disputed.  For  an  illustration  of  the 
sense  in  which  "  subjection  to  the  bishop  as  to  the  grace  of 
God  "  is  to  be  understood,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the 
latter  part  of  the  fifth,  and  the  first  part  of  the  sixth  chapters 
of  2  Corinthians.  The  apostle  having  described  himself  and 
his  fellow-apostles  as  entrusted  with  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion, and  as  being,  in  this  respect,  "  embassadors  for  Christ," 
says,  "  We  then,  as  workers  together  with  him,  beseech  you 
also  that  ye  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in  vain."  As  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel,  not  as  governors,  they  brought  the  grace  of 
God  to  men.  It  was  committed  to  them  for  dispensation,  as 
preachers  of  it.'  Subjection  to  them,  or  to  any  ministers,  there- 
fore, as  to  the  grace  of  God,  was  subjection  to  them  as  God's 
messengers,  by  believing  and  obeying  the  truth  which  they 
preached.  Very  different  is  the  idea  conveyed,  when  we  read 
of  subjection  "  to  the  presbytery^  as  to  the  Jaw  of  Jesus  ChristP 
In  the  other  case,  it  is  subjection  to  a  religious  teacher;  here 
it  is  subjection  to  ecclesiastical  governors. 

Our  author's  next  quotation  is  from  the  epistle  of  Ignatius 
to  the  Trallians,  —  "He  that  is  within  the  altar  is  pure,  but  he 
that  is  without,  i.  e.  that  does  any  thing  without  the  bishop, 
and  presbyters,  and  deacons,  is  not  pure  in  his  conscience." 
Not  to  say  any  thing  of  the  christian  doctrine  expressed  in 
this  quotation,  which,  so  far  as  it  is  plain,  is  very  absurd,  what 
is  gained  for  episcopacy  by  the  mere  occurrence  of  the  terms 
"  bishop,  and  presbyters,  and  deacons  ? "  Every  well  organized 
Presbyterian  church,  at  the  present  day,  has  a  "bishop,  and 
presbyters,  and  deacons."  Was  the  bishop  of  whom  Ignatius 
speaks,  a  diocesan  bishop  or  prelate  ?  What  kind  of  a  bishop 
was  he  ?  That  is  the  question.  We  have  heaped  proof  upon 
proof  that  the  bishops  of  those  days  were  mere  presbyters^ 
chosen  from  among  their  fellow-presbyters  to  occupy  the  chief 
place,  to  conduct  public  worship,  and  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  that  they  were  not  reordained.     It  is  positively  sickening 


208  THE  CHURCH, 

to  have  such  testimonies  as  these  forever  crowded  before  us, 
when  our  opponents,  must  know  that  they  determine  nothing. 

This  is  the  character  of  all  the  testimony  from  Ignatius.  He 
speaks  often  of  bishops,  and  very  extravagantly  of  the  dignity 
of  their  office,  and  often  speaks  of  them  in  connection  with 
presbyters  and  deacons,  but  never  once  affirms  any  thing  from 
which  it  can  be  inferred  that  bishops  belonged  to  a  higher  and 
distinct  order  in  the  ministry.  His  language  is  always  such  as 
a  very  high-church  Presbyterian,  filled  with  extravagant  and 
absurd  notions  respecting  ministerial  authority,  would  be  likely 
to  use. 

Mr.  Schuyler  says,  in  support  of  the  authority  of  Ignatius, 
that  "  Poly  carp,  in  his  letter  to  the  Philippians,  indorses  all 
that  Ignatius  wrote."  He  can  not  mean  to  say  that  Polycarp 
endorses  the  seven  epistles.  Does  Polycarp  endorse  the  epistle 
to  the  Magnesians  ?  or  the  epistle  to  the  Trallians  ?  or  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Smyrnaeans,  and  the  Philadelphians  ?  He  endorses 
three;  one  to  the  Romans,  one  to  the  Ephesians,  and  one  to 
himself,  but  no  more;  and  there  is  no  evidence  in  all  his 
writings  that  he  ever  knew  of  another.  It  is  therefore, 
extremely  unfair,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  in  our  author,  having, 
with  a  single  exception,  made  all  his  quotations  from  the 
epistles  which  Polycarp  never  once  alludes  to,  to  sustain  them 
by  Polycarp's  testimony  respecting  only  the  three. 

Ireneus  is  quoted  by  Mr.  S.,  as  sa}4ng, — "  We  can  reckon  up 
those  whom  the  apostles  ordained  to  be  bishops  in  the  several 
churches,  and  who  they  were  that  succeeded  them,  down  to  our 
time.  And  had  the  apostles  known  any  hidden  mysteries, 
which  they  imparted  to  none  but  the  perfect,  as  the  heretics 
pretend,  they  would  have  committed  them  to  those  men  to 
whom  they  committed  the  churches  themselves;  for  they 
desired  to  have  those  in  all  things  perfect  and  unreprovable, 
whom  they  left  to  be  their  successors,  and  to  whom  they  com- 
mitted the  apostolic  authority."  "  What  proof,"  says  Mr.  S., 
"can  we  desire  more    positive  than    this,   that    the   bishops 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  209 

were  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  invested  with  apostoHc 
authority  ? " 

Better  proof,  we  say,  could  not  be  desired.  Our  author  is 
quite  right;  but  then  that  troublesome  question  ccmes  up 
again, — "  What  does  Ireneus  mean  by  bishops  ?  Does  he  mean 
an  order  of  ministers  distinct  from  presbyters,  and  above  them? 
What  kind  of  bishops  did  the  apostles  place  in  the  churches  ? 
If  we  will  allow  them  to  testify  for  themselves,  the  question  is 
easily  settled.  In  their  time  it  is  confessed  that  the  bishops 
were  simple  presbyters.  Ireneus  explains  his  own  meaning  in 
the  section  just  preceding  the  one  from  which  our  author's 
extract  is  taken.  The  passage  has  been  quoted  once,  but  I  will 
quote  it  again  here.  Speaking  of  certain  heretics,  he  says, — 
"  When  we  refer  them  to  that  apostolic  tradition,  which  is 
preserved  in  the  churches,  through  the  succession  of  their 
PRESBYTERS,  tliesc  uicu  oppose  the  tradition;  pretending  that, 
being  more  wise  than  not  only  the  presbyters,  but  the 
apostles  themselves,  they  have  found  the  uncorrupted  truth." 
The  Sz'sA  ops,  therefore,  whom  the  apostles  ordained  over  the 
churches,  and  whom  they  invested  with  their  authority,  were 
mere  presbyters,  according  to  the  understanding  of  Ireneus 
himself. 

"  To  the  same  efiect,"  Mr.  S.  continues  to  say,  "  speaks  Ter- 
tullian,  who  clearly  recognizes  the  three  orders."  To  the  same 
effect  also,  is  our  reply.  Tertullian  certainly  speaks  of  bishops 
who  were  placed  over  the  churches  by  the  apostles,  or  by  apos- 
tolic men,  {i.  e.  those  evangelists  who  acted  as  assistants  of  the 
apostles,)  and  he  speaks  of  a  succession  of  these  bishops,  but 
does  he  tell  us  that  they  were  a  distinct  order  in  the  ministry  ? 
Not  at  all.  He  tells  us  plainly  that  they  were  not  a  distinct 
order  in  the  ministry.  He  says,  —  De  Bapt.  c.  1 7, —  "The 
highest  priest^  who  is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  granting 
baptism;  afterwaid,  the  presbyter  and  deacons;  not,  however, 
without  the  authority  of  the  bishop,  for  the  honor  of  the 
church."     He  is  speaking  here  of  the  rules,  or  customs  of 


210  THE  CHURCH, 

religious  service  in  a  single  congregation.  His  expression, 
"  the  highest  priest,"  implies  the  existence  of  inferiors  of  the 
same  order ;  and  comparing  his  language  with  other  testimo- 
nies of  that  time,  it  is  perfectly  undeniable  that  the  bishop^  of 
whom  he  speaks,  is  only  a  presbyter  raised  to  the  office  of 
president,  or  pastor. 

"  Tertullian^''  says  Coleman,  "represents  the  African  division 
of  the  church,  in  which  the  episcopal  government  was  earliest 
developed;  but  even  in  these  churches,  the  apostolical  order 
had  not  yet  been  fully  superseded  by  the  hierarchy.  The  sum 
of  his  testimony,  as  well  as  of  that  of  all  who  had  gone  before 
him,  (he  flourished  A.  D.  200,)  is,  that  there  was  but  one  order 
in  the  church  superior  to  that  of  the  deacons.  The  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  was,  in  his  time,  in  a  transition  state. 
He  stands,  as  has  been  justly  observed,  '  on  the  boundary  be- 
tween two  different  epochs  in  the  development  of  the  church.' 
Henceforth,  the  bishop  assumes  more  prominence,  but  as  yet  he 
has  not  begun  to  be  acknowledged  as  one  of  an  order  superior 
to  the  presbyters." 

Tertullian,  our  author  says,  "recognizes  the  three  orders." 
What  is  the  proof  that  Tertullian  recognizes  the  three  orders  ? 
Simply  this,  that  he  speaks  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons. 
If  the  mere  use  of  these  different  names  of  office,  proves  that 
there  were  three  orders  of  the  ministry  in  the  ancient  church, 
then  might  it  not  be  proved  in  the  same  way,  that  there  are 
three  orders  of  the  ministry  in  the  Presbyterian  church  now  ? 
for  we  also  have  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons.  In  the 
English  church,  there  are  archbishops,  bishops,  presbyters,  arch- 
deacons, and  deacons.  Might  it  not,  on  the  same  principle,  be 
argued  that  there  are  five  orders  of  the  ministry  in  that  church  ? 
The  reasoning  would  be  false,  for  it  is  known  that  diflferent 
titles  of  office  are  given  to  persons  belonging  to  the  same  order. 
Precisely  so,  we  affirm,  that  different  titles  of  office  are  given 
by  Tertullian  and  other  ancient  writers  to  persons  belonging  to 
the  same  ministerial  order.     Tertullian  and  others  may  speak 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  211 

of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,,  but  this  proves  nothing. 
We  want  specific  evidence,  which  can  not  be  furnished,  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  distinct  in  the  grade  of  their  min- 
istry. While  no  evidence  is  produced  that  they  were  so,  we 
are  able  to  produce  it,  in  a  perfect  abundance,  that  they  were 
not.  What  our  author  cites  as  proof,  therefore,  is  no  proof  at 
all.     His  conclusion  is  the  merest  possible  assumption. 

His  next  witness  is  Cyprian,  who  flourished  in  Africa,  about 
the  middle  of  the  third  century.  We  do  not  deny  that  at  this 
time,  and  especially  in  Africa,  the  original  and  apostolical  order 
of  church  government,  was,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  dis- 
placed. Cyprian  was  himself  the  most  violent  advocate  of 
episcopal  authority  in  his  time ;  and,  more  than  any  one  else,  is 
chargeable  w4th  the  innovations  which  were  then  introduced. 
But  he  was  not  unresisted  in  his  usurpations.  The  passage 
quoted  by  Mr.  Schuyler,  shows  how  he  was  opposed,  and  how 
the  presbyters,  even  so  late  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
and  in  Africa^  contended  for  their  rights.  He  complains  that 
"  the  presbyters,"  "  in  disdain  of  the  bishop's  rule,"  "  assumed 
to  themselves  unlimited  power,"  and  seems  to  be  filled  with 
indignation  against  them  for  their  presumption.  The  passage 
which  our  author  has  cited,  instead  of  making  for  his  cause,  is 
directly  against  it ;  inasmuch  as  it  proves  most  conclusively  that 
our  representation  ^f  the  state  of  things  in  Cyprian's  time  is 
just:  that  episcopacy,  instead  of  being  established,  was  only 
struggling  for  an  estabhshment ;  that  the  bishops  and  presby- 
ters were  at  strife, —  the  latter  to  preserve  their  ancient  privi- 
leges, and  the  former  to  secure  a  monarchical  ascendency. 

With  all  Cyprian's  high  claims  for  bishops,  and  arrogation 
of  exclusive  authority  for  them,  it  is  a  fact  well  attested  that, 
in  times  of  serious  difficulty,  he  did  often  come  down  from  his 
elevation,  and  condescend  to  admit  them  to  a  participation  in 
the  exercise  of  governmental  powers.  Under  the  pressure  of  a 
necessity,  he  could  give  up  his  unwarrantable  pretensions,  and 


212  THE  CHURCH, 

consent  to  act  with  presbyters,  as  one  of  them.     The  proof  of 
this  has  been  elsewhere  aftbrded. 

Our  author  concludes  his  notice  of  ancient  authorities  with 
an  attemj)t  to  explain  away  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  He  says, 
page  95  —  "The  passage  on  which  they  (Presbyterians)  place 
the  most  stress,  is  simply  an  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of 
St.  Jerome.  It  is  not  his  testimony  as  to  the  fact  whether,  in 
his  day,  bishops  were  an  order  superior  to  the  presbyters,  but 
the  expression  of  his  belief  that  very  early  in  the  church  it 
became  necessary,  to  prevent  schisms,  to  place  one^  chosen  from 
among  the  presbyters,  over  the  rest ;  that  the  whole  care  of  the 
church  should  be  committed  to  him."  To  prove  this,  Mr.  S. 
quotes  a  passage  which,  as  he  quotes  it,  is  not  the  strong  pas- 
sage on  which  we  chiefly  rely.  What  says  Jerome  ?  Having 
stated  the  fact  that  originally  presbyters  and  bishops  were  one 
and  the  same,  he  adds,  "  Should  any  one  think  that  this  is  my 
'private  opinion^  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  let  him 
read  the  words  of  the  apostle,"  &c.  Further  on,  he  says  — 
"  Our  intention  in  these  remarks  is  to  show,  that,  among  the 
ancients,  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  very  same  ;  but 
that,  by  little  and  little^  that  the  plants  of  dissensions  might  be 
plucked  up,  the  whole  concern  was  devolved  upon  an  individual. 
As  the  presbyters,  therefore,  know  (a  mere  opinion,  was  it  ?) 
that  they  are  subjected,  by  the  custom  op  t5e  church,  to  him 
that  is  set  over  them,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are 
greater  than  the  presbyters  more  by  custom  than  by  any  real 

APPOINTMENT  OF  ChRIST." 

We  admit  that  in  Jerome's  time,  A.  D.  377,  bishops  were 
superior  to  presbyters.  The  very  passage  which  we  quote 
proves  it.  It  is  to  no  purpose,  therefore,  that  Mr.  S.  quotes 
other  passages  from  this  father,  to  establish  that  point.  Jerome, 
testifying  as  to  the  primitive  constitution  of  the  church,  and 
the  historical  fact  of  the  orginal  equality  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, is  one  thing ;  and  Jerome,  testifying  of  the  state  of  things 
in  the  church,  at  his  time^  is  another.     Jerome,  testifying  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  213 

superiority  of  bisliops  over  presbyters,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  is  a  very  different  affair  from  Jerome  testifying  of  the 
manner  in  which  that  superiority  had  been  obtained,  by  the 

CUSTOM    OF    THE    CHURCH,  and    NOT  BY  ANY  REAL  APPOINTMENT 

OF  Christ  !  We  do  not  cite  this  father  as  a  witness  of  the 
form  of  church  polity  in  his  own  day,  but  as  a  witness  of  what 
in  his  day  was  known  in  regard  to  the  early  polity  of 
the  church,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  polity  then 
EXISTING  had  been  INTRODUCED.  He  is  the  witness  of  what, 
in  his  day,  were  well  understood  historical  facts. 

Not  one  of  the  authorities  which  our  author  has  furnished, 
helps  his  cause  in  the  least.  He  has  produced  absolutely  noth- 
ing which  goes  to  show  that,  during  the  first  two  centuries, 
bishops  were  regarded  as  composing  a  distinct  order  in  the 
ministry, —  and  no  evidence  of  this  has  ever  been  furnished  by 
any  writer.  The  whole  amount  of  the  proof  consists  of  the 
mere  fact,  that  some  of  the  writers  of  that  age  use  the  name 
"  bishop,"  and  that  they  speak  of  "  bishops,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons," without  affording  a  hint,  even,  that  there  was  any 
inequality  of  rank,  as  ministers,  between  the  two  first-named 
classes  of  persons.  Of  prelacy  and  diocesanship  they  find  no 
signs,  till  they  come  down  to  a  period  in  which  we  have  never 
denied  that  the  primitive  and  apostolical  order  of  church  gov- 
ernment had  begun  to  be  crowded  out  by  episcopal  usurpations. 

In  reference  to  what  we  alledge  and  prove  of  the  change 
which  took  place  in  the  polity  of  the  christian  church  after 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  Mr,  S.  observes,  page  102, — 
"  Surely  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  must  have  been 
essentially  defective,  which  could  admit  of  an  entire  change  in 
the  organization  of  the  church,  in  so  short  a  time."  A  little 
further  on,  he  adds,  "  But  the  strangest  of  all,  my  brethren,  is, 
that  so  great  a  change  could  have  been  made ;  a  change  affect- 
ing the  essential  constitution  of  the  church,  and  within  the 
short  space  of  forty  years,  and  not  a  record  of  this  astonishing 


214  THE  CHURCH, 

revolution  be  found  upon  a  single  page  of  our  ecclesiastical 
history." 

What  does  he  mean  by  "  our  ecclesiastical  history  ?  "  Does 
he  mean  the  ecclesiastical  histories  written  by  prelatists  ?  We 
should  hardly  expect  to  find  the  record  of  which  he  speaks  on 
their  pages.  There  are  ecclesiastical  histories,  however,  in 
abundance,  on  whose  pages  the  record  may  be  found.  Mo- 
sheim,  beyond  all  comparison,  until  recently,  the  ablest  and 
most  learned  historian  of  the  church  that  ever  wrote,  traces 
that  revolution  with  the  utmost  minuteness  in  all  its  successive 
steps.  Gieseler  does  the  same ;  and  Neander,  now  the  acknow- 
ledged prince  in  this  department  of  literature,  throws  such  a 
flood  of  light  upon  this  subject,  that  whoever  reads  him  must 
be  blind  to  doubt.  Where  do  Mosheim  and  Gieseler  and 
Neander  obtain  their  information  ?  From  the  sources  of  all 
church  history, —  the  New  Testament  and  the  authentic  writings 
of  each  succeeding  age.  How  do  we  know  that  such  a  revolu- 
tion did  actually  occur  ?  By  comparing  the  form  of  church 
government,  as  it  appears  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and 
the  fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries,  with  the  form  of  church 
government  as  it  appears  in  the  writings  of  the  ages  following. 
Could  there  be  a  more  direct  and  reliable  method  of  getting  at 
the  truth  ? 

Says  Dr.  Mason,  in  his  book  on  Episcopacy,  page  220, — 
"  The  United  States  are  a  republic,  with  a  single  executive, 
periodically  chosen.  Suppose  that  three  hundred  years  hence, 
they  should  be  under  the  reign  of  a  hereditary  monarch,  and 
the  question  should  then  be  started  whether  this  was  the  origi- 
nal order  or  not?  Those  who  favor  the  negative,  go  back  to 
the  written  constitution,  framed  in  1787,  and  show  that  a 
hereditary  monarchy  was  never  contemplated  in  that  instrument. 
Others  contend  that,  "  The  expressions  of  the  constitution  are 
indefinite;  there  are  some  things,  indeed,  which  look  a  little 
republican-like,  and  might  be  accommodated  to  the  infant  state 
of  the  nation ;  but  whoever  shall  consider  the  purposes  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  215 

order  tlierein  prescribed,  and  the  nature  of  the  powers  therein 
gi-anted,  will  clearly  perceive  that  the  one  can  not  be  at- 
tained, nor  the  other  exercised,  but  in  a  hereditary  monarchy." 
Well,  the  constitution  is  produced ;  it  is  examined  again  and 
again,  but  no  hereditary  monarchy  is  recognized  there;  it 
breathes  republicanism  throughout.  What,  now,  would  be 
thought  of  a  man  who  should  gravely  answer, — "  The  concur- 
rent testimony  of  all  the  historians  of  those  times  is,  that  at,  or 
very  shortly  after  the  death  of  the  members  of  the  convention 
of  1787,  monarchy  prevailed  throughout  the  United  States; 
and  this  is  proof  positive  that  it  was  established  by  the 
convention  ? " 

"  Nay,"  the  first  would  rejoin,  "  your  facts  are  of  no  avail. 
The  question  is  not,  what  prevailed  after  the  constitution  was 
adopted,  but  what  is  the  constitution  itself?  There  it  is;  let 
it  argue  its  own  cause." 

"  But,"  says  the  other,  "  how  could  so  great  a  change,  as  that 
from  a  republic  to  a  monarchy,  happen  in  so  short  a  time  ?  and 
without  resistance ;  or,  what  is  still  more  astonishing,  without 
notice  ? " 

"  You  may  settle  that,"  retorts  the  first,  "  at  your  leisure. 
That  there  has  been  a  material  change,  I  see  as  clearly  as  the 
light;  how  that  change  was  effected  is  none  of  my  concern. 
It  is  enough  for  me  that  the  constitution,  fairly  interpreted, 
knows  nothing  of  the  existing  monarchy." 

"Every  child  can  perceive  who  would  have  the  best  of  the 
argument,  and  it  is  just  such  an  argument  that  we  are  man- 
aging with  the  Episcopalians." 

Again.  Dr.  Mason  says,  page  240  —  "  Nothing  can  be  more 
pointless  and  pithless  than  the  declamation  *  *  *  on  the 
change  which  took  place  in  the  original  order  of  the  church. 
They  assume  a  false  fact,  to  wit,  that  the  change  must  have 
happened,  if  it  happened  at  all,  instantaneously:  and  then 
they  expatiate  with  great  vehemence  on  the  impossibility  of 
such  an  event.     This  is  mere   noise.     The  change  was  not 


216  THE  CHURCH, 

instantaneous,  nor  sudden.  The  testimony  of  Jerome,  which 
declares  that  it  was  gradual,  has  sprung  a  mine  under  the  very- 
foundation  of  their  edifice,  and  blown  it  into  the  air.  Were  we 
inclined  to  take  up  more  of  the  reader's  time  on  this  topic,  we 
might  turn  their  own  Aveapon,  such  as  it  is,  against  themselves. 
They  do  not  pretend  that  archbishops,  patriarchs,  and  primates 
are  of  apostolical  institution.  They  will  not  so  insult  the 
understandings  and  the  senses  of  men,  as  to  maintain  that  these 
officers  have  no  more  power  than  simple  bishops.  Where, 
then,  were  all  the  principles  of  adherence  to  apostolic  order, 
when  these  creatures  of  human  policy  made  their  entrance  into 
the  church  ?  Among  whom  were  the  daring  innovators  to  be 
found  ?  Where  was  the  learning  of  the  age  ?  Where  its  spirit 
of  piety,  and  its  zeal  of  martyrdom  ?  Where  were  the  presby- 
ters? Where  the  bishops?  What!  all,  all  turned  traitors  at 
once?  All,  all  conspire  to  abridge  their  own  rights,  and  sub- 
mit their  necks  to  the  new-made  superiors  ?  What !  none  to 
reclaim  or  remonstrate  ?  Absurd !  Incredible !  Impossible ! 
These  questions,  and  a  thousand  like  them,  might  be  asked  by 
an  advocate  for  the  divdne  right  of  patriarchs,  with  as  much 
propriety  and  force  as  they  are  asked  by  the  advocates  of  the 
simpler  episcopacy.  And  so,  by  vociferating  on  abstract  prin- 
ciples, the  evidence  of  men's  eyes  and  ears  is  to  be  overturned, 
and  they  are  to  believe  that  there  are  not  now,  and  never  have 
been  such  things  as  archbishops,  patriarchs,  or  primates,  in  the 
christianized  world ;  seeing  that  by  the  assumption  of  the  argu- 
ment, they  have  no  divine  original ;  and  by  its  terms  they  could 
not  have  been  introduced  by  mere  human  contrivance. 

"  To  return  to  Jerome.  The  prelatists  being  unable  to  evade 
his  testimony  concerning  the  change  which  was  effected  in  the 
original  order  of  the  church,  would  persuade  us  that  he  means 
a  change  brought  about  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves P  (See  Mr.  Schuyler,  j^p.  96,  97.)  "  But  the  subterfuge 
is  unavailing. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  217 

"  (1.)  It  alledges  a  conjectural  tradition  against  the  authority 
of  the  written  scriptures,  for  no  trace  of  a  change  can  be  seen 
there. 

"  (2.)  It  overthrows  completely  all  the  proof  drawn  for  the 
hierarchy  from  the  apostolic  records.  For  if  this  change  was 
introduced  by  the  apostles  after  their  canonical  writings  were 
closed,  then  it  is  vain  to  seek  for  it  in  their  writings.  The 
consequence  is,  that  the  hierarchists  must  either  retreat  from  the 
New  Testament,  or  abandon  Jerome. 

"  (3.)  It  makes  this  intelligent  father  a  downright  fool  —  to 
plead  apostolic  authority  for  the  original  equality  of  ministers ; 
and,  in  the  same  breath,  to  produce  that  same  authority  for  the 
inequality  which  he  was  resisting ! 

"  (4.)  To  crown  the  whole,  it  tells  us  that  the  apostles  having 
fixed,  under  the  influence  of  divine  inspiration,  an  order  for  the 
church,  found,  upon  a  few  years  trial,  that  it  would  not  do,  and 
were  obliged  to  mend  it;  only  they  forgot  to  apprise  the 
churches  of  the  alteration ;  and  so  left  the  exploded  order  in 
the  rule  of  faith,  and  the  new  order  out  of  it ;  depositing  the 
commission  of  the  prelates  with  that  kind  foster-mother  of  the 
hierarchy,  tradition/ '''' 

Mr.  Schuyler  speaks  of  this  change  as  taking  place  "  in  the 
short  space  of  forty  yearsP  This  is  to  make  it  appear  the 
more  incredible.  The  truth  is,  that  we  discover  no  traces  of 
the  change  until  after  the  first  two  hundred  years,  a  century  at 
least  after  the  death  of  the  last  apostle  ;*  and  during  the  whole 
of  the  next  century  we  do  not  find  the  change  "  perfected." 
The  entire  period  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  even,  may 
be  described  as  a  period  of  conflict  between  the  primitive 
and  the  prelatic  forms  of  church  polity,  in  which  the  latter 
gained  more  and  more  the  ascendency.  It  was  a  very  long 
time,  before  the  church  fully  succumbed  under  episcopal  usur- 
pation. Many  presbyters,  like  Cyprian's  in  Carthage,  continued 
to  struggle  for  their  ancient  rights ;  and  many  an  honest  voice 
like  St.  Jerome's  was  raised,  for  many  a  year,  in  defense  of  the 
11 


218  THE    CHURCH, 

ancient  order ;  but  the  power  of  the  bishops,  sustained  by  their 
influence  over  the  uneducated  masses,  and  at  length  by  civil 
rulers,  finally  prevailed,  and  the  hierarchy  stretched  its  arms 
over  the  christian  world,  coercing  every  thing  into  a  tame  sub- 
mission to  its  will.  Then,  as  the  crowning  scene  of  the  same 
revolution,  appeared  the  papacy ;  and  then,  denser  and  darker, 
and  more  intolerable,  grew  that  dreadful  night,  already  begun, 
which  for  twelve  hundred  years  hung  over  the  church  and 
the  world. 

As  to  the  idea  that  "  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment must  have  been  essentially  defective,  to  admit  of  an 
entire  change  in  so  short  a  space  of  time,"  it  is  to  be  remarked, 
that  our  author  assumes  for  us  a  claim  which  we  do  not  make. 
We  do  not  affirm  that  the  primitive  and  apostolical  order  of 
the  church  was  Presbyterian,  in  the  present  denominational 
sense  of  that  term,  as  he  seems  inclined  to  intimate,  but  simply 
that  it  was  presbyterial,  i.  e.  established,  so  far  as  the  ministry 
was  concerned,  upon  the  great  principle  oi  parity.  For  what  is 
properly  the  presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  we  sim- 
ply maintain,  that  while  in  some  respects  it  exists  now  under 
modifications,  adapted,  as  we  think  wisely,  to  the  present  state 
of  the  church  and  of  the  world,  it  holds  incorporated  in  itself 
all  the  great  and  essential  features  of  the  apostolical  institution. 

If,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  men  of  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, the  presbyterial  order  was  judged  to  be  defective,  in  not 
presenting  sufficient  barriers  against  the  inroads  of  heresy  and 
schism,  it  needs  only  to  be  remembered  how  sad  a  remedy 
that  proved  to  be,  which  their  wisdom,  setting  itself  above  the 
wisdom  of  God,  devised.  Whether  the  remedy  proved  not 
worse  than  the  disease,  let  the  long  ages  of  darkness,  and  of 
hierarchical  despotism,  and  depravity  that  ensued,  bear  witness. 

Whether  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  my  point,  the  right 
of  presbyters,  according  to  the  original  constitution  of  the 
church,  to  ordain,  I  am  willing  to  submit  to  the  candid  and 
intelligent  reader. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  219 

I  shall  conclude  this  part  of  my  subject  with  remarking,  that 
until  very  recently,  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy  was  a  pre- 
tension almost  unheard  of  among  Protestant  Episcopalians.  The 
view  which  we  have  given  of  its  origin,  was  the  view  almost 
universally  entertained  in  England,  by  intelhgent  men  at  the 
time  of  the  reformation,  and  has  been  from  that  day  down  to 
the  present  time,  until  the  comparatively  recent  revival  of  the 
Romish  spirit  in  the  English  church.  All  the  prdminent  Eng- 
lish reformers  agreed  with  Cranmer,  in  his  opinion  formally 
expressed  in  writing,  that  "  the  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one 
time  07ie,  and  were  no  two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  Later,  when  Charles  First  con- 
sulted with  Lords  Jermyn  and  Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Ashburn- 
ham,  all  three  Episcopalians,  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  act 
of  parhament  for  abolishing  episcopacy,  and  signified  that  he 
had  conscientious  scruples  against  giving  it  his  assent,  they  re- 
plied, "  If  by  conscie7ice^  your  meaning  is  that  you  are  obliged 
to  do  all  in  your  power  to  support  and  maintain  the  functions 
of  the  bishops,  as  that  which  is  the  most  ancient,  reverend,  and 
pious  government  of  the  church,  we  fully  and  heartily  concur 
with  you  therein.  But  if  by  conscience,  it  is  intended  to  assert 
that  episcopacy,  is  jure  divino  exclusive,  whereby  no  protestant 
(or  rather  christian)  church  can  be  acknowledged  for  such  with- 
out a  bishop,  we  must  therein  crave  leave  wholly  to  differ. 
And  if  We  be  not  in  error,  we  are  in  good  company ;  there  not 
being  (as  we  have  cause  to  believe)  six^  persons  of  the  protes- 
tant religion  of  the  other  opinion.  Thus  much  we  can  add, 
that,  at  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  none  of  your  divines  then  pre- 
sent, though  much  provoked  thereunto,  would  maintain  that 
(we  might  say  uncharitable)  opinion ;  no,  not  privately  among 
your  commissioners." 

Bishop  White,  whom  all  good  men  revered,  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  Considered,"  has  the  following  language,  which  I  quote 
in  this  connection,  on  the  authority  of  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Wisner: 


220  THE  CHURCH, 

"  Now,  if  even  those  who  hold  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right, 
conceive  the  obligation  to  it  not  to  be  binding,  when  that  idea 
would  be  destructive  of  public  worship,  much  more  must  they 
think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most 
ancient  and  eligible,  hut  ivithout  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the 
case.  This,  the  author  beheves  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great 
body  of  Episcopahans  in  America ;  in  which  respect  they  have 
in  their  favor,  unquestionably^  the  sense  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, and,  as  he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished 
prelates  for  piety  and  abilitiesr 

The  recent  changes  of  sentiment  among  Episcopalians,  and 
especially  among  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  this  country  and  in 
E no-land,  are  ominous.  The  tendency  toward  Rome,  evinced, 
not  only  by  the  growing  popularity  of  Romish  opinions,  but  by 
the  matured  result  of  innumerable  perversions  to  the  Romish 
faith,  becoming  every  year  more  frequent,  is  well  calculated  to 
awaken  the  most  alarming  apprehensions.  Romanists  are  in 
raptures,  and  begin  to  congratulate  themselves  that  the  day  is 
now  near  at  hand,  when  the  Episcopal  section  of  Protestantdom 
at  least,  shall  be  brought  back  to  the  bosom  of  their  church. 
Very  recently,  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Buffalo,  passing 
by  the  new  and  elegant  church  edifice  now  in  process  of  erec- 
tion for  the  parish  of  St.  Paul's,  in  this  city,  is  reported  to  have 
said  to  a  gentleman  who  was  with  him, —  "  That  is  well.  They 
are  building  churches  for  us.  We  shall  have  them  all  in  a  few 
years."  I  do  not  believe  that  the  bishop's  expectations  will  be 
fully  realized.  God  forbid  that  they  should  be.  Yet  if  this 
calamity  is  to  be  avoided,  there  must  be  a  speedy  arrest  of  the 
refluent  tide  of  opinions  and  sympathies  in  the  Episcopal  church. 
Let  come  a  few  more  years,  with  the  unchecked  growth  of 
such  influences  as  have  prevailed  for  twenty  years  past,  and  the 
work  will  be  done.  The  bishop's  prediction  will  come  to  pass, 
and  Rome  will  have  the  churches.  It  is  notorious,  that  senti- 
ments are  boldly  avowed,  and  usages  practised,  by  vast  numbers 
of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  without   exciting  any  more  than  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  221 

passing  remark,  which,  a  few  years  ago,  would  have  been  met 
with  indignant  frowns,  and  the  severest  ecclesiastical  censure. 
It  is  perfectly  amazing  to  see  with  what  celerity  and  force  the 
Oxford  leaven  has  diffused  itself.  It  is  one  of  the  most  signifi- 
cant tokens  of  these  times,  and  we  wait  with  the  profoundest 
interest  to  know  what  the  result  shall  be. 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

In  all  essential  respects,  the  question  concerning  the  apostol- 
ical succession  has  been  disposed  of  already.  If  it  has  been 
made  evident,  that  the  apostles,  as  such,  were  not  to  be  suc- 
ceeded, that  their  office  was  personal  and  temporary,  in  its  very 
nature,  and  by  design  of  Christ,  then  the  fact  of  a  succession 
must  fall,  of  course,  with  the  doctrine. 

Says  our  author,  page  1 1 3, — "We  think  we  have  established, 
in  our  preceding  discourses,  upon  the  authority  of  scripture  and 
the  ancient  fathers,  that  there  were  three  orders  of  ministers  in 
the  church,  distinguished  by  a  gradation  of  rights  and  powers ; 
that  these  were  known  immediately  after  the  apostolic  age,  by 
their  respective  names  of  bishops,  priests  or  presbyters,  and 
deacons;  and  that  the  bishops  alone  succeeded  to  the  apostolic 
office,  being  alone  empowered,  as  were  Timothy  and  Titus,  to 
perpetuate  the  ministry  and  to  govern  the  church.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  all  who  claim  to  act  as  the  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  his  church,  either  as  bishops,  presbyters,  or  dea- 
cons, must  have  a  verifiable  commission  from  those  who  were 
empowered  to  bestow  it ;  that  is,  must  he  episcopally  ordained. 

The  error  of  this  statement,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  point  in 
hand,  lies  in  the  assumption  of  what  never  has  been,  and  never 
can  be  proved,  but  has  been  disproved  a  thousand  times :  that 
bishops  are  a  distinct  order  in  the  ministry  of  the  christian 
churchy  and  that  they  have  succeeded  to  the  apostolic  office. 


222  THE  CHURCH, 

A  false  doctrine  is  assumed,  and  an  inference  of  falsehood  is 
derived  from  it. 

Having  stated  his  doctrine  as  above,  our  author  goes  on 
to  say: 

"  There  is  no  escaping  from  such  a  requisition,"  (^.  e.  of  pre- 
latical  ordination,)  "  unless  we  deny  the  divine  authority  of  the 
ministry  altogether,  and  assume  the  position  that  Christ  left  the 
church  without  any  authorized  rulers,  to  be  moulded  and 
governed  by  the  caprice  of  men." 

We  can  not  see  that  such  a  consequence  would  be  the  result. 
It  seems  to  us,  and  we  think  it  will  seem  to  any  one  who  is 
capable  of  looking  at  more  than  one  side  of  this  subject,  that 
all  the  conditions  of  a  divine  right  in  the  christian  ministry,  are 
as  well  secured  by  our  doctrine  of  a  presbyterial  succession 
from  the  apostles,  regarding  them  as  the  first  presbyters,  as  by 
the  doctrine  of  our  opponents. 

Does  it  follow,  from  our  denying  that  the  apostles  ordained 
other  apostles,  that  we  must  also  deny  that  they  ordained  other 
ministers?  And  if  they  ordained  other  ministers  to  take  their 
places,  in  the  ordinary  and  permanent  ministry  of  the  church, 
with  authority  to  ordain  others  in  perpetual  succession,  did 
they  not  then  provide  an  apostolical  ministry  for  all  ages,  just 
as  really,  and  a  thousand  times  more  effectually  and  certainly, 
than  they  would  have  done  on  the  different  supposition  of  pre- 
latists  ?  The  alternative,  which  we  are  told  is  alone  left  to  us, 
if  we  reject  the  episcopal  theory,  is  a  mere  fancy  of  our  author, 
betraying  how  little  study  or  thought  he  has  ever  bestowed 
upon  this  subject.  When,  on  a  former  occasion,  puzzled  with 
the  ordination  of  Timothy  by  the  presbytery,  he  deemed  it 
important  to  recognize  the  fact,  that  the  apostles  were  also 
presbyters,  then  that  fact  appeared  to  be  one  of  the  mere  com- 
mon-places of  his  varied  understanding;  but  now,  with  the 
turning  up  of  another  difficulty,  the  circumstances  are  changed, 
and  it  seems  to  have  entirely  passed  from  his  recollection. 
Now,  the  apostles  were  apostles  merely,  and  if  they  did  not 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  223 

perpetuate  their,  apostlesliip  they  did  not  perpetuate  any  thing ; 
so  that  the  succession  of  the  ministry  which  Christ  appointed  for 
his  church,  terminated  with  them,  and  the  church  was  left  with 
out  any  authorized  rulers,  to  be  moulded  and  governed  by  the 
caprice  of  men !  " 

Under  the  hallucination  of  this  capital  mistake,  our  author 
has  constructed  his  entire  argument,  if  argument  it  may  be 
called,  on  this  subject. 

If  by  "  the  apostolical  succession,"  is  meant  a  succession  of 
the  christian  ministry  from  the  apostles,  or  from  those  first 
ministers  of  our  Lord  who  were  also  apostles,  we  believe  in  it 
with  our  whole  heart.  If,  however,  a  succession  of  apostles  is 
meant,  we  laugh  at  it  as  most  absurd  and  impossible,  and  can 
only  wonder  at  the  infatuation  of  those  who  do  not  join  with 
us  in  our  merriment. 

No  argument  for  an  uninterrupted  presbyterial  succession,  or 
what  is  equivalent  to  it,  from  the  apostles,  that  is,  from  the  men 
who  were  the  first  presbyters,  and  who  received  their  presby- 
terial authority  in  the  church  from  Christ  himself,  can  be 
required  of  us.  It  might  be  necessary,  if  we  w^ere  arguing  with 
infidels,  but  can  not  be  in  an  argument  with  Episcopalians ;  for, 
on  only  the  same  principles  which  they  employ  in  demonstrating 
the  fact  of  their  succession,  ours  is  a  thousand  fold  more 
demonstrable  than  theirs.  We  recognize  principles,  however? 
applicable  to  this  subject,  growing  out  of  our  different  ^iews  of 
the  nature  of  ordination,  by  which  the  difiiculties  that  must 
forever  embarrass  any  succession,  as  a  fact  to  be  historically 
proved,  extending  through  so  long  a  period  of  time,  are  all  fully 
relieved.  Belie\dng,  as  they  do,  in  the  actual,  and  not  the  sym- 
bolic impartation  of  grace  by  ordination;  believing,  that  the 
bishop's  hands  do  really  communicate  it,  and  that  this  grace,  as 
a  substantial  holy  ichor,  first  imparted  by  Christ  to  his  apostles, 
has  flowed  down  from  them  through  a  series  of  manual  impo- 
sitions, in  such  a  sense,  that  from  one  break  in  the  channel 
it  would  be  irrecoverably  lost,  unless   restored  by  a  miracle; 


224  THE  CHURCH, 

believing  so,  their  succession  is  certainly  one  of  tlie  most  aston- 
ishing chimeras  that  tl»e  human  mind  ever  conceived  of  as  a 
reality.  I  do  not  wonder  that  every  argumentation  on  its  behalf 
should  end  as  these  argumentations  invariably  do,  with  an 
appeal  from  the  reader's  power  of  understanding  to  his  power 
of  believing,  and  that  we  should  be  required,  on  the  assumption 
of  the  doctrine,  to  credit  the  fact  as  a  prodigy  referable  to  the 
almighty  power  and  faithfulness  of  God. 

That  I  do  not  mis-state  or  over-state  the  Episcopal  doctrine 
on  this  subject,  the  reader  may  be  satisfied  by  a  few  extracts 
from  their  approved  authors. 

Bisho}^  Beveridge  says,  —  see  his  works,  vol.  2,  Serm.  on 
Christ's  presence  with  his  ministry, — "  The  apostolical  line  hath, 
through  all  ages,  been  preserved  entire,  there  having  been  a 
constant  succession  of  such  bishops  in  it,  as  were  truly  and  prop- 
erly successors  to  the  apostles,  by  virtue  of  the  imposition 
of  hands,  which  being  begun  by  the  apostles,  hath  been  con- 
tinued from  one  to  another,  ever  since  their  time  down  to  ours. 
By  which  means,  the  same  spirit  which  was  breathed  by  our 
Lord  into  his  apostles,  is,  together  with  their  office  transmitted 
to  their  lawful  successors,  the  pastors  and  governors  of  our 
church  at  this  time ;  and  acts,  moves,  and  assists,  at  the 
administration  of  the  apostolic  office,  in  our  days,  as  much 

AS    EVER." 

The  mysterious  sacramental  virtue  of  ordination,  as  a  means 
of  communicating  grace,  and  the  miraculous  presence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  with  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church  now,  as 
really  as  with  the  apostles  of  old,  are  here  stated  in  tei-ms  too 
plain  to  be  misunderstood.  One  can  not  forbear  expressing  a 
regret,  that  so  little  practical  evidence  has  ever  been  afforded  of 
the  justice  of  these  pretensions. 

Says  Dr.  Chandler, —  See  "  Appeal  on  Behalf  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  America," — "If  the  succession  be  once  lost, 
not  all  the  men  on  earth,  not  all  the  angels  in  heaven,  without 
an  immediate  commission  from  Christ,  can  restore  it." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  225 

The  same  view  is  impliedly  expressed  by  Chapin^  as  quoted 
in  appendix  D,  page  209,  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  book. 

By  the  Episcopal  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession,  the  whole 
grace  of  God  to  men  is  deposited  with  the  bishops,  so  that  if 
the  line  of  bishops  should  fail,  the  church  would  be  destroyed, 
and  the  entire  work  of  human  salvation  would  cease.  See 
Chapin,  as  referred  to  above.  They  constitute  the  sole  channel 
through  which  the  divine  mercy  flows  to  the  successive  genera- 
tions of  earth ;  and  that,  not  as  mere  agents,  by  whom  the 
word  of  hfe  is  dispensed,  for  this  would  put  them  on  a  level 
with  ordinary  ministers ;  but  the  very  life  is  with  them.  They 
are  dispensers,  not  especially  of  the  message  of  grace,  but  of 
grace  itself.  Christ  lives  in  the  church  in  their  persons,  and 
acts  solely  with,  and  through  them,  and  with  and  through  those 
to  whom  they  impart  the  heavenly  gift. 

Bishop  B.  T.  OnderdonTe,  himself  a  striking  commentary  on 
the  doctrine,  says, —  see  his  "Address  on  Unity," — "  None  but 
the  bishops  can  unite  us  to  the  Father,  in  the  way  of  Christ's 
appointment ;  and  these  bishops  must  be  such  as  receive  their 
commissions  from  the  first  commissioned  apostles.  Wherever 
such  bishops  are  found  dispensing  the  faith  and  sacraments  of 
Christ,  there  is  a  true  church;  unsound,  it  may  be,  like  the 
church  of  Rome,  but  still,  a  real  and  true  church;  as  a  sick  or 
diseased  man,  though  unsound,  is  still  a  real  and  true  man." 

Dr.  Hook,  author  of  "  The  Three  Reformations,"  is  quoted  by 
Smyth,  in  his  "  Lectures  on  the  Apostolical  Succession,"  page 
105,  as  saying, — "Unless  Christ  be  spiritually  present  with  the 
ministers  of  religion  in  their  services,  those  services  will  be  vain. 
But  the  only  ministrations  to  which  he  has  promised  his  pres- 
ence^ are  those  of  bishops,  who  are  successors  to  the  first 
commissioned  apostles,  and  to  the  other  clergy  acting  under 
THEIR  saiiction,  and  by  their  authority^ 

Dr.  Dodwell  is  quoted  in  the  same  place,  by  Smyth,  from 
the  "  New  York  Churchman,"  as  using  this  language, — "  None 
but  the  BISHOPS  can  unite  us  to   the  Father  and  the  Son. 
11* 


226  THE  CHURCH, 

Whence  it  will  follow,  that  whoever  is  disunited  from  the  visible 
communion  of  the  church  on  earthy  and  particularly /rom 
the  visible  communion  of  the  bishops,  must  consequently  be 
disunited  from  the  whole  visible  catholic  church  on  earth,  and 
not  only  so,  but  from  the  in^dsible  communion  of  the  holy 
angels  and  saints  in  heaven,  and,  what  is  yet  more,  from  Christ 
and  God  himself  It  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  aggravations 
of  the  condition  of  the  damned,  that  they  are  banished  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power. 
The  SAME  is  their  condition,  also,  who  are  disunited  from  Christ 
By  being  disunited  from  his  visible  representative^ 

These  are  but  specimens,  selected  pretty  much  at  random, 
from  a  great  variety  of  similar  representations,  that  I  have 
before  me.     They  serve  sufficiently  to  exhibit  the  doctrine. 

Can  any  man  have  doubts  respecting  the  origin  of  this 
doctrine  of  apostolical  succession?  Who  does  not  instantly 
recognize  it  as  a  part  of  that  system  of  cunningly  devised 
priest-craft  and  imposture,  by  which  the  hierarchy  has  ever 
sought  to  enslave  the  human  mind,  and  to  establish  the  iron 
yoke  of  its  desp'otism  on  the  necks  of  all  people  ?  I  do  not 
charge  our  Episcopal  brethren  with  any  such  designs;  but  I  do 
charge  them  with  seeking,  conscientiously  it  may  be,  to  per- 
petuate a  doctrine  begun  in  fraud,  and  used  in  all  ages  since, 
for  the  most  oppressive  and  man-debasing  purposes.  Whence 
did  the  church  of  Rome  derive  her  monstrous  power  to  tyran- 
nize over  the  world,  and  to  hold  men's  very  souls  in  subjection 
to  her  will,  but  from  this  same  dogma  of  the  apostolical  suc- 
cession ?  The  BISHOPS  ALONE  can  unite  us  to  the  Father !  To 
be  disunited  from  the  bishops,  is  to  be  disunited  from  God 
and  Christ,  and  this  is  to  be  damned  !  The  way  to  God  is 
by  Christ,  and  the  way  to  Christ  is  by  the  bishops,  or  by  the 
other  clergy  acting  under  their  sanction,  and  by  their  author- 
ity !  It  is  not  by  believing  and  obeying  the  truth,  as  it  is  re- 
vealed in  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God,  that  we  are  to 
escape  the  most  dreadful  aggravations  of  the  condition 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  227 

OF  THE  DAMNED ;  but  it  is  by  submitting  to  tlie  bishop,  or  to 
his  authorized  representative,  the  priest  !  This  is  the  doctrine. 
God  approaches  us  only  through  these  agents.  The  divine 
fountain  of  hfe  is  utterly  and  forever  inaccessible  to  us.  The 
bishops  and  their  subordinate  ministers,  the  priests,  must 
convey  to  us  those  living  waters,  or  we  can  never  drink  them ! 
They  are  the  medium  of  all  gracious  communication  with  us 
poor  sinners;  the  sole  conduits  through  which  the  streams  of 
salvation  must  flow  to  us,  or  never  flow  to  us  at  all !  The 
bishops,  in  long  lines  of  unbroken  succession,  each  line  begin- 
ning at  Christ,  and  receiving  from  him  the  true  vital  element, 
convey  it  down  from  hand  to  hand  by  an  endless  series  of 
mystical  manipulations,  and  we,  to  receive  it,  must  go  to  them,  or 
go  without  for  ever !  They,  at  the  farther  extremities  of  their 
several  lines,  lay  hold  on  God ;  upon  whom,  if  we  would  lay 
hold  also,  we  must  lay  hold  on  them !  Where  are  we  then  ? 
Good  Lord  dehver  us !  We  are  in  the  power  of  the  bishops, 
sure  enough,  and  there  is  nothing  left  for  us  but  to  bow  or 
burn.  Voluntary  separation  from  the  bishops  is  voluntary 
exclusion  from  all  good !  The  bishop's  anathema  is  the  curse 
of  God !  The  bishop's  sentence  of  excommunication  damns 
the  soul! 

The  Episcopal  doctrine  of  the  apostolical  succession  amounts 
to  this,  and  there  is  no  help  for  it.  It  is  the  very  kernel  of  the 
whole  system  of  popish  abominations.  Can  it  be  that  such  a 
doctrine  is  maintained  in  this  enlightened  and  free  country,  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  by  Protestants  ?  Must  it  be  argued 
against,  to  prevent  it  from  spreading  among  men  who  have 
bibles  ?  I  can  not  think  that,  of  the  Episcopal  laity,  one  in  a 
hundred  really  believes  it.  Why  do  they  bear  with  such  folly  ? 
Why  do  they  lend  their  influence,  even  indirectly,  to  the  sup- 
port of  that,  which,  folly  though  it  be,  and  now  little  else  than 
a  harmless  theory  of  their  clergy,  may  one  day  become  a  most 
powerful  engine  of  spiritual  oppression,  under  which  their  de- 
scendants, if  not  themselves,  shall  groan  in  a  miserable  and 


228  THE  CHURCH, 

hopeless  bondage?  Such  wretched,  yet  dangerous  nonsense 
ought  to  meet  with  strenuous  rebukers  among  EpiscopaUans 
themselves.  Intelligent  laymen  should  let  their  bishops  and 
rectors  know,  that  it  is  altogether  too  late  for  priests  even  to 
assert  such  pretensions,  and  that  they  will  not  be  tolerated.  I 
wonder  at  their  forbearance. 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Mr.  Schuyler's  fifth  lecture  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  "  the 
authority  and  expediency  of  forms  of  prayer  for  public  wor- 
ship." He  regards  the  subject  as  one  of  great  importance,  and 
thinks  that  Episcopalians  ought  "  to  settle  the  question,  whether 
the  church  has  any  scriptural  basis  on  which  to  build  her  time- 
honored  usage  in  this  respect."  I  heartily  concur  with  him  in 
this  view. 

I  said  in  the  appendix  to  my  sermon,  page  fifty, — "  There  is 
not  a  word  of  authority  in  the  scriptures  for  the  use  of  pre- 
composed  forms  of  prayer.  There  is  not  the  shadow  of  an 
evidence  that  the  church,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  used 
forms  of  prayer,  or  that  a  question  was  ever  raised  in  regard 
to  th^e  propriety  of  using  them."  Our  author  calls  this  a 
"bold  assertion,"  and  manfully  declares  that  he  enters  upon 
this  discussion  with  "  full  knowledge  of  my  having  made  it. 
I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  if  the  assertion  was  bold,  it  was 
at  least  well  considered.  Of  this  I  hope  to  be  able  to  satisfy 
my  readers.  Passing  by  some  rhetorical  flourishes  with  which 
his  lecture  opens,  we  shall  proceed  at  once  to  an  examination 
of  its  more  serious  matter. 

He  commences  with  quoting  what  he  regards  as  authorita- 
tive examples  from  the  Old  Testament,  in  favor  of  liturgies. 
It  should  be  remarked  here,  that  my  assertion  was  made  with 
simple  reference  to  the  christian  church,  and  that  nothing  more 
was  intended  than  that  there  is  no  scriptural  authority  for  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  229 

use  of  precomposed  forms  of  prayer  now.  I  do  not  see,  there- 
fore, what  would  be  gained  by  him,  should  he  prove  in  the 
clearest  manner,  that  forms  were  prescribed  for  the  Jewish  wor- 
shipers. The  Old  Testament  scriptures  we  truly  regard  as  of 
divine  authority,  equally  binding  upon  christians,  so  far  as  they 
inculcate  truth  and  moral  duty,  with  any  other  part  of  the 
sacred  canon;  but  no  one  will  pretend  that  the  ordinances 
which  were  given  to  the  Jews  for  the  regulation  of  their  public 
worship,  impose  the  least  degree  of  obligation  upon  us,  or  are 
to  be  regarded,  in  any  sense,  even  as  examples  for  our  imita- 
tion. Still,  I  am  not  unwilling  to  allow  to  Mr.  S.  all  the 
advantage  which  he  can  derive  from  this  species  of  argument. 
He  has  utterly  failed  to  prove,  that  the  ancient  Jewish  church 
used  a  liturgy ;  and  if  he  had  no  other  evidences  than  those 
which  he  has  adduced,  I  can  not  but  feel  amazed  that  he  should 
have  ventured  to  make  the  attempt. 

The  reader  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind,  what  is  the  real 
point  in  debate  between  us :  whether  there  is,  or  is  not,  scrip- 
tural authority  for  the  u^e  of  liturgies,  precomposed  fortns 
of  prayer,  in  the  public  worship  of  God  in  the  church. 

For  his  first  proof  of  the  afiirmative,  our  author  reminds  us 
that  "  Moses  composed  a  sublime  song  of  thanksgiving,  which 
was  sung  responsively  in  praising  God,  when  the  Israelites 
celebrated  their  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage."  This  is 
to  show  that  the  Jewish  church  worshiped  God  by  a  liturgy ! 
Does  our  author  not  know  that  we  Presbyterians  have  sublime 
songs  precomposed,  and  printed  in  books  too,  which  we  habit- 
ually sing  in  our  churches  to  the  praise  of  God?  Is  our 
worship,  therefore,  liturgical?  Songs,  which  are  to  be  sung  by 
the  united  voices  of  a  congregation,  must  of  necessity  be  pre- 
composed ;  but  the  case  is  very  different  of  prayers,  which  are 
to  be  offered  up  by  a  single  voice,  and  joined  in  mentally  and 
spiritually  by  other  worshipers. 

We  are  told  next,  that  "  as  the  Israelites  journeyed,  whenever 
the  ark  moved  forward  or  rested,  there  was  a  special  prayer 


230  THE  CHURCH, 

to  be  said."  Now,  the  simple  fact  is,  that  we  are  informed  in 
the  thirty-sixth  and  thirty-seventh  verses  of  the  tenth  chapter 
of  Numbers,  what  the  prayer  was,  which,  in  one  instance, 
Moses  offered  at  the  setting  forward  of  the  ark,  and  again,  at 
the  resting  of  it.  Does  any  one  know  that  these  same  prayers, 
without  variation,  w^ere  said  on  every  similar  occasion  ?  And 
if  they  were,  what  then?  Does  it  follow  that  the  Jews, 
in  their  public  church  service,  used  a  liturgy?  We  shall  be 
very  far  from  admitting  that  the  Jewish  worship  was  liturgical^ 
simply  because  on  certain  great  and  extraordinary  occasions,  a 
form  of  words  was  used. 

Again,  w^e  are  told  that  "  after  a  form,  the  priests  of  Israel 
were  required  to  bless  the  people."  This  was  undoubtedly  so, 
but  what  does  it  prove  ?  Have  we  ever  questioned  the  propri- 
ety of  a  form  of  words  in  pronouncing  a  benediction  ?  Is  it 
not  our  own  invariable  practice  to  use  a  form  ?  We  use,  it  is 
true,  not  always  the  same  form.  After  apostolical  precedent 
we  allow  ourselves  liberty  in  this  respect,  yet  a  form  we  always 
employ.     What  then  ?     Are  we  also  liturgists  ? 

Our  author  cites  the  foregoing  authorities  hastily,  as  though 
he  himself  did  not  think  much  of  them.  Who  can  wonder  ? 
"  But  in  the  book  of  Psalms,"  he  continues  with  evidently-rising 
courage,  "  we  have  an  inspired  2^^'^!/^^-^<>o^j  and  one  which 
was  composed  expressly  for  public  worship."  Dear  Mr.  Schuy- 
ler !  was  the  book  of  Psalms  used  in  the  public  worship  of  the 
Jews,  as  a  prayer-hook,  or  as  a  psalm-hook?  Think  hard 
now,  and  give  us  your  deliberate  opinion.  Were  the  sublime 
effusions  contained  in  this  book  said  as  prayers,  or  were  they 
sung  as  songs  ?  What  would  you  say,  if  you  were  testifying 
according  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and  belief,  in  a  court 
of  justice  ?  I  can  not  but  remind  my  friend  again,  that  the 
course  of  his  argument  is  making  liturgists  of  us  Presbyterians 
also :  for  these  same  psalms,  expressed  in  English  verse,  not  near 
so  literally  as  we  could  desire,  we  also  sing  every  sabbath  day 
in  our  churches.     Mr.  S.  says  —  "  Hezekiah  enjoined  the  use  of 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  231 

these  yery  forms  in  the  service  of  the  temple,"  and  adds,  — 
"We  are  told,  2  Chron.  xxix:  30  —  'Hezekiah  the  king,  and 
the  princes,  commanded  the  Levites  to  sing  praises  unto  the 
Lord,  ivith  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph  the  seer;  and 
they  sang  j^raises  with  gladness,  and  bowed  their  heads  and 
worshiped.  So  the  ser\4ce  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  was  set 
in  order." 

What  more  proper  thing,  we  reply,  could  they  do  ?  If  sing- 
ing was  to  be  a  part  of  the  temple  service,  where  could  they 
have  found  words  more  appropriate  for  that  purpose,  than  "  the 
words  of  David  and  of  Asaph  the  seer  ?  "  Where  could  they 
have  found  subhmer  poetry,  or  purer,  and  more  devout,  and 
soul-inspiring  sentiment  ?  The  people  of  God  in  all  branches  of 
the  church,  still  regard  the  psalms  as  pre-eminently  suited  for 
the  purpose  of  devotion ;  and  still  God  is  praised,  as  nearly  as 
can  be  in  other  tongues,  all  the  world  over,  "  in  the  words  of 
David  and  of  Asaph  the  seer."  "  Upon  the  erection  of  the 
second  temple,"  our  author  goes  on  to  say,  "  a  similar  service 
was  prescribed."  That  is  to  say,  the  Jews  still  continued,  by 
direction,  to  sing  the  psahns.  Wonderful,  indeed !  But  what 
has  all  this  to  do  with  the  question  under  discussion,  in  regard 
to  precomposed  forms  of  prayer?  We  want  proof  that  the 
temple  servdce  of  the  Jews  was  liturgical,  and  our  author  gravely 
informs  us  that  they  had  an  authorized  psalm-book  I 

The  psalms  were  metrical  compositions,  set  to  musical  notes, 
to  be  sung,  with  an  instrumental  accompaniment,  by  the  people. 
We  know  that  many  of  these  psalms  are  really  prayers,  but  this 
does  not  effect  the  question  of  the  purpose  for  which  they  were 
composed,  or  of  the  manner  in  M^hich  they  were  actually  em- 
ployed. They  were  written  to  be  sung,  because  that  which  is 
to  be  sung  by  a  concert  of  voices,  must,  of  necessity  be  written ; 
and  they  were  sung  by  the  congregation,  not  said,  as  prayers, 
by  the  conductor  of  public  worship. 

The  last  authority  from  the  Old  Testament,  with  which  our 
author  has  favored  us,  is  taken  from  Hosea  xiv :  2, — "  Take 


232  THE  CHURCH, 

with  you  words,  and  turn  unto  the  Lord.  Say  unto  him,  Take 
away  all  our  iniquity,  and  receive  us  graciously,"  &c.  This, 
Mr.  S.  calls  "  an  express  command  to  the  people  to  come  with 
words  prepared  when  they  would  address  the  Most  High." 
We  are  forcibly  reminded  here  of  the  Shaking  Quaker's  proof 
text  for  dancing  in  pubhc  worship,  and  for  his  peculiar  manner 
of  performing  that  rite.  What  does  the  reader  imagine  it  to 
be  ? —  "  Turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die  ?  " —  We  think 
our  author  not  one  whit  behind  the  Shaker  in  his  shrewd 
insight  into  scripture  meanings.  To  whose  mind  but  an  Epis- 
copalian's searching  for  liturgical  precedents,  would  this  text  ever 
have  suggested  the  idea  that  he  seems  to  have  gathered  from 
it  ?  Who  denies  that  prayer  is  to  be  offered  to  God  in  words  ? 
Who  denies  that  when  we  are  about  to  draw  near  to  God  in 
prayer,  we  ought  to  premeditate  what  we  design  to  say,  and  to 
come  with  "  words  prepared  ?  "  The  very  nature  of  prayer  im- 
plies the  necessity  of  this.  To  pray,  is  to  ask  God  for  things 
that  we  need,  and  that  we  desire  to  receive.  How  can  we  pray 
until  we  have  first  ascertained  our  wants,  and  formed  in  our 
minds  the  petitions  that  we  desire  to  make  ?  Now  what  was 
the  real  purport  of  the  prophet's  exhortation  ?  Urging  the  rebel- 
lious people  of  Israel  to  return  penitently  to  God,  whom  their 
sins  had  offended  and  provoked,  he  directs  them  to  return  with 
prayer,  and  very  properly  suggests  to  them  various  petitions 
and  confessions,  suitable  in  such  a  case  as  theii"s  to  be  made. 
This  is  the  whole  of  it ;  and  yet  our  ingenious  author  finds  in 
this  text  the  syllabus  of  a  complete  discourse  on  the  subject  of 
liturgies.  What  was  designed  as  a  simple  advice,  or  direction 
to  the  Israelites  in  their  then  existing  circumstances,  is  made  by 
him  a  general  positive  precept  on  the  subject  of  prayer,  and  we 
are  told  to  regard  it  as  "  an  express  command  to  the  people  to 
come  with  zvords  prepared,  when  (/.  e.  lohenever)  they  would 
address  the  Most  High."  "Take  with  you  wordsP — By 
"words,"  he  can  understand  nothing  short  of  ^^ words  pre- 
pared^' that  is,   according  to  his  own  understanding  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP,  233 

matter,  written  down.     ^'- Say  unto   him,"  &c. —  This  means, 
read  from  a  hook.     Oh,  excellent !     Thus  we  hve  and  learn. 

We  have  now  seen  the  whole  of  our  author's  argument  from 
the  Old  Testament.  He  undertakes  to  prove  from  this  source, 
that  the  ancient  Jews,  in  their  pubhc  and  ordinary  worship  of 
God,  prayed  by  prescribed  forms,  that  is,  that  they  had  and 
used  a  liturgy  —  a  fact  by  the  way,  which  if  it  were  ever  so 
well  established,  would  have  no  bearing  on  the  real  question  in 
debate, —  and  what  are  his  proofs  ?  "What  does  he  show  us  to 
relieve  our  doubts  on  this  point  ?  Why,  that  Moses  composed 
a  song  to  the  praise  of  God,  which,  on  stated  occasions,  the  peo- 
ple sang;  that  he  offered  a  prayer  once  when  the  ark  moved, 
and  another  when  it  rested,  the  words  of  both  which  prayers 
are  preserved;  that  the  priests  had  a/orm  of  benediction  which 
they  were  required  to  pronounce  upon  the  people ;  that  in  the 
temple  service,  the  singing  was  directed  to  be  performed  "  in 
the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph,  the  seer ; "  and  that  the 
prophet  Hosea,  on  one  occasion,  exhorting  the  people  to  repent- 
ance, suggested  to  them  the  substance  of  a  prayer  and  confession 
which  would  be  suitable  for  them  to  offer ! 

Now,  1  ask,  if  our  author  does  not  seem  to  have  been  sadly 
pressed  for  the  materials  of  a  demonstration  ?  If  this  was  all 
that  he  could  find,  he  must  have  felt  that  there  was  something 
very  like  a  scarcity  in  the  land.  Let  no  one  blame  him,  how- 
ever, except  for  his  attempt.  He  has  done  his  best,  and  no  one 
could  do  more. 

So  far,  at  least,  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  my  "  bold 
assertion "  may  be  repeated.  There  is  not  the  shadow  of  an 
evidence  there,  that  among  the  ancient  Jews,  a  liturgy  was  ever 
known  or  heard  of. 

The  best  example  of  a  public  prayer,  offered  in  the  presence 
of  the  congregation  of  Israel,  and  the  one  which,  of  all  others, 
should  be  quoted,  as  furnishing  testimony  on  the  point  now 
before  us,  is  the  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple,  which  we  have  at  large  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  first 


234  THE  CHURCH, 

Kings.  Why  did  Mr.  Schuyler  fail  to  notice  this  prayer  ?  For 
the  reason,  undoubtedly,  that  he  could  make  nothing  of  it,  but 
confusion  to  his  cause.  He  hioivs  that  it  was  not  read  from  a 
book,  nor  read  at  all,  but  uttered  as  it  was  conceived  in  the 
heart  of  that  pious  king.  If  any  one  is  not  satisfied  on  this 
head,  it  is  sufiicient  barely  to  notice  the  account  that  we  have 
of  it  in  the  place  where  the  prayer  is  found :  — "  And  Solomon 
stood  before  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  in  the  presence  of  all  th^ 
congregation  of  Israel,  and  spread  forth  his  hands  toward 
heaven:  and  he  said.  Lord  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  God 
like  thee,"  &c.,  &c.  Again,  at  the  end,  we  read, — "  And  it  was 
so,  that  when  Solomon  had  made  an  end  of  praying  all  this 
prayer  and  supplication  unto  the  Lord,  he  arose  from  before  the 
altar  of  the  Lord,  from  kneeling  on  his  knees,  v)ith  his  hands 
spread  up  to  heaven^  The  mere  attitude  of  the  king  in  this 
semce,  "  with  his  hands  spread  up  to  heaven,"  shows  in  the 
clearest  manner  that  he  was  not  reading  from  a  book,  but 
simply  pouiing  out  the  free  desires  of  his  own  soul  to  God.  I  f 
our  author,  in  the  agony  of  his  fruitless  search  after  liturgical 
precedents  in  the  Old  Testament,  had  not  known  that  this  was 
so,  or  if  he  could  have  furnished  any  plausible  pretext  for  a 
different  construction  of  the  record,  would  he  have  passed  by 
this  prayer  of  Solomon  with  such  profound  silence  ?  Who  will 
believe  it  ? 

"  It  will  not  be  denied,"  so  he  proceeds,  passing  on  now  to 
another  field  of  evidence,  "  that  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  the 
Jews  used  forms  of  prayer  in  their  synagogues."  Then  follows 
a  quotation  from  Hooker,  which,  it  is  presumed,  if  any  one  were 
disposed  to  deny  it,  would  effectually  deter  him.  He  might 
have  quoted  Lightfoot,  Hall,  Prideaux,  and  Usher,  with  even 
better  effect ;  but  as  he  seems  fully  to  believe  that  his  proposi- 
tion will  not  be  denied,  he  doubtless  thought  that  the  name  of 
Hooker  would  be  sufficient.  Great  men,  and  even  bishops, 
however,  have  sometimes  been  mistaken ;  and  he  must  not  be 
surprised,  if  after  all,  some  one  should  be  found  to  deny  "  that 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  235 

in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  the  Jews  used  forms  of  prayer  in 
their  synagogues."  Still,  for  the  present,  let  it  be  admitted. 
We  know  that  there  were,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  many  observ- 
ances and  practices  among  the  Jews,  founded  solely  upon  the 
traditions  of  the  elders,  whereby  the  commandments  of  God 
were  made  of  none  effect.  Our  Saviour  distinctly  told  them 
so.  Now  it  devolves  upon  our  opponents  in  this  discussion,  to 
show  that  these  liturgies  were  introduced  by  di\dne  authority, 
and  that  they  were  not  the  corrupt  devices  of  men.  We  have 
followed  our  author  in  his  search  through  the  Old  Testament 
scriptures  for  prescription  and  precedent^  and  he  finds  neither 
one,  nor  the  other.  No  trace  of  a  divine  warrant  for  precom- 
posed  forms  of  prayer,  or  of  usage  to  justify  the  presumption 
that  such  a  warrant  was  ever  afforded,  is  any  where  discover- 
able. If  then,  it  can  be  proved,  that  liturgies  were  in  use 
among  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's  time,  we  say  again, —  and  we 
hope  our  author  will  bear  it  in  mind,  if  ever  he  sees  fit  to  recur 
to  this  subject, —  that  it  devolves  upon  him  to  show  that  they 
were  not  part  and  parcel  of  the  corruptions,  which  it  is  well 
known  had  for  two  or  three  centuries  been  creeping  into  the 
Jewish  church.  Admitting  the  existence  of  these  pretended 
liturgies  in  the  time  of  Christ,  what  then  ?  Our  author  says, 
page  162, —  "We  are  told  by  the  evangelists,  that  our  Saviour 
was  in  the  habit  of  attending  upon  the  worship  of  the  syna- 
jTogue.  We  can  not  believe  that  he  sat  there  as  an  idle 
spectator,  while  the  true  Israel  were  thus  worshiping  the  God 
of  their  fathers.  Nor  can  we  believe  that  he  would  have 
sanctioned  by  liis  presence,  a  mode  of  worship,  in  itself^  unfit- 
ting the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  or  unauthorized  by  divine 
prescription.  Here  then,  in  the  fact  that  he  attended  the  syna- 
gogue, that  he  went  there  himself  as  a  worshiper,  and  that  he 
united  in  the  ser\dce,  we  have  the  highest  of  all  sanctions,  even 
that  of  his  own  blessed  example,  to  prescribed  forms  for 
public  worship." 


236  THE  CHURCH, 

This  is  certainly  a  very  pious  view  of  the  subject,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  a  very  poor  specimen  of  reasoning.  Has  not 
Mr.  Schuyler  himself,  sometimes  attended  public  worship  in  a 
Presbyterian  meeting-house?  Very  likely  he  has  not  done  so 
since  his  conversion  to  Episcopacy,  but  possibly  he  has.  At 
least  I  may  suppose  a  case.  If  he  should  do  such  a  thing, 
does  he  imagine  that  by  engaging  reverently  in  the  services,  he 
would  be  fairly  chargeable  with  sanctioning  the  use,  in  public 
worship,  of  extempore  prayers  ?  Were  I  to  attend  his  church, 
and,  as  devoutly  as  possible,  follow  him  in  the  prayers  which 
should  be  read,  could  he  infer  from  my  so  doing,  that  I  approve 
of  liturgies? 

But  to  the  case  before  us.  Does  our  author  not  believe  that 
there  were  many  things  both  in  the  manner  and  matter  of  the 
synagogue  worship,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  which  were 
really  offensive  to  him,  or  which,  at  least,  he  would  have 
wished  to  be  different  ?  How,  then,  does  his  attendance  on 
that  worship,  and  his  participation  in  it,  prove  that  he  sanc- 
tioned the  use  of  written  forms  of  prayer  ?  Our  author  must 
remember,  that  we  do  not  charge  upon  a  liturgical  service,  that 
it  is  positively  sinful,  but  only  that  it  is  not  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  that  it  is  inexpedient.  Of  course,  the  Saviour  would 
not  have  engaged  with  the  Jewish  worshipers  in  the  practice 
of  sin;  but  might  he  not  have  tolerated  some  things  which  he 
did  not  wholly  approve  ?  Is  it  not  certain,  from  his  attend- 
ance on  the  Jewish  worship,  which,  whatever  may  be  said  of 
the  prayers,  every  one  knows  to  have  been  infected  with  many 
novelties,  through  their  traditions,  that  he  actually  did  so  ? 

But,  now  for  the  main  question.  Was  the  worship  of  the 
Jews,  in  our  Lord's  time,  liturgical?  Mr.  Schuyler,  after 
quoting  from  Hooker,  to  show  that  liturgies  were  then  in 
use,  says,  page  161,  —  "Many  of  these  liturgies  are  still 
extant,  and  we  may  have  .access  to  them  in  the  very  forms 
then  in  use."  Will  he  pretend  to  say  that  this  is  a  set- 
tled, absolute  fact?     I  must  remind  him  that  many  ancient 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  237 

documents  which  are  now  on  all  hands  admitted  to  be  spurious, 
have  been  vouched  for  as  authentic,  by  men  as  learned  and 
every  way  worthy  of  confidence  as  "the  learned  and  pious 
Hooker"  himself,  (whose  learning-  and  piety  I  do  not  at  all 
question,)  or  any  others  that  have  sought  to  verify  these  pre- 
tended Jewish  liturgies.  Who  has  not  heard  of  liturgies  in 
the  church,  composed  by  St.  Peter,  and  St.  James,  and  St. 
Mark  ?  and  that  there  are  now  extant,  canons  and  constitutions 
asserted  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  the  whole  college  of  the 
apostles?  Even  these  have  not  wanted  learned  and  pious 
defenders ;  but  what  scholar  now  regards  them  as  genuine,  or 
does  not  smile  at  the  credulity  that  ever  trusted  them  for  a 
moment  ?  Nothing  could  be  more  uncertain  than  the  kind  of 
evidence  on  which  the  credit  of  these  ancient  liturgies  depends. 
If  Mr.  S.  is  satisfied  with  it,  I  am  not.  The  sole  authority  for 
them  is  the  Mishna.  And  what  is  this  ?  Bishop  Home  says  — 
vol.  ii,  pages  295-296  —  "The  Mishna  is  a  collection  of  vari- 
ous traditions  of  the  Jews,  and  of  expositions  of  scripture  texts ; 
which,  they  pretend^  were  delivered  to  Moses  during  his  abode 
on  the  mount,  and  transmitted  from  him,  through  Aaron,  Ele- 
azar,  and  Joshua,  to  the  prophets,  and  by  those  to  the  men  of 
the  great  Sanhedrim,  from  whom  they  passed  in  succession  to 
Simeon,  (who  took  our  Saviour  in  his  arms,)  Gamaliel,  and 
ultimately  to  Rabbi  Jehudah,  surnamed  Hakkadosh  the  Holy. 
By  him  this  digest  of  oral  law  and  traditions  was  completed, 
toward  the  close  of  the  second  century,  after  the  labor  of  forty 
years."  Prideaux  —  vol.  ii,  page  ninety-three,  and  onward  — 
gives  a  detailed  account  of  this  book,  according  to  representa- 
tions of  the  Jewish  Rabbis :  "  They  tell  us,''^  he  says,  page 
ninety-five,  "that  at  the  same  time  when  God  gave  unto 
Moses  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai,  he  gave  unto  him,  also,  the 
interpretation  of  it^  commanding  him  to  commit  the  former  to 
writing,  but  to  deliver  the  other  only  by  word  of  mouth,  to  be 
preserved  in  the  memories  of  men,  and  to  be  transmitted  down 
by  them,  from  generation  to  generation,  by  tradition  only ;  and 


238  THE  CHURCH, 

from  hence,  the  former  is  called  the  written,  and  the  other  the 
oral  law."  He  then  proceeds  to  describe  the  Jewish  account  of 
the  manner  in  which  this  oral  law  was  preserved,  and  the  suc- 
cession of  men  through  whose  memories  it  was  perpetuated. 
Moses  gave  it  to  Joshua,  and  he  to  the  elders,  and  they  to  the 
prophets  "  till "  —  pages  ninety-seven  and  ninety-eight  —  "  it 
came  to  Jeremiah,  who  delivered  it  to  Baruch,  and  Baruch  to 
Ezra,  by  whom  it  was  delivered  to  the  men  of  the  great  syna- 
gogue, the  last  of  whom  was  Simon  the  Just.  Finally,  it 
came  into  the  hands  of  Rabbali  Judah  Hakkadosh,  who  wrote 
it  into  the  book  which  they  call  the  Mishna.  But  all  this," 
adds  this  author,  "  is  mere  fiction,  spun  out  of  the  fertile  inven- 
tion of  the  Talmudists,  without  the  least  foundation  either  in 
scripture  or  in  authentic  history.  *  *  *  But  the  truth 
of  the  whole  matter  is  this :  after  the  death  of  Simon  the  Just, 
(B.  C.  299,)  there  arose  a  sort  of  men  whom  they  call  the 
Tanaim,  or  the  Mishnical  doctoi*s,  that  made  it  their  business 
to  study  and  descant  upon  those  traditions  which  had  been 
received  and  allowed  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  great  syna- 
gogue, and  to  draw  inferences  and  consequences  from  them,  all 
of  which  they  ingrafted  in  the  body  of  these  ancient  traditions, 
as  if  they  had  been  as  authentic  as  the  other ;  which  example 
being  followed  by  those  who  succeeded  them  in  this  profession, 
they  continually  added  their  own  imaginations  to  what  they 
had  received  from  those  that  went  before  them,  whereby  these 
traditions  becoming  as  a  snow-ball,  the  farther  they  rolled 
down,  from  one  generation  to  another,  the  more  they  gathered, 
and  the  greater  the  bulk  of  them  grew.  And  thus  it  went  on 
till  the  middle  of  the  second  century  after  Christ,  when  Anto- 
nius  Pius  governed  the  Roman  empire;  by  which  time  they 
found  it  necessary  to  put  all  these  traditions  into  writing ;  for 
they  were  then  grown  to  so  great  a  number,  and  enlarged  to  so 
huge  a  heap,  as  to  exceed  the  possibility  of  being  any  longer 
preserved  by  the  memory  of  men."  He  proceeds  to  say,  that 
Rabbi  Judah,  at  this  time,  undertook  the  work  of  compiling 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  239 

this  crude  and  heterogeneous  mass  of  matter,  and  finally  pro- 
duced the  book  which  is  called  the  Mishna ;  "  which  book  was 
forthwith  received  by  the  Jews  with  great  veneration,  through- 
out all  their  dispersions,  and  hath  ever  since  been  held  in  high 
esteem  among  them:  for  their  opinion  of  it  is,  that  all  the 
particulars  therein  recorded  were  dictated  by  God  himself 
to  Moses,"  &c.  &c. 

This,  let  it  be  observed,  accounts  sufficiently  for  the  use  of 
the  Mishnical  prayers,  by  Jews  of  the  present  day,  w  ithout  at 
all  supposing,  necessarily,  that  any  such  forms  were  actually 
employed  in  the  synagogue  worship  at  the  time  of  Christ. 

On  page  413,  of  Prideaux,  vol.  ii,  there  occurs  another  pas- 
sage worthy  of  notice.  — "  After  this,  (i.  e.  after  the  death  of 
Simon  the  Just,)  follow^ed  the  Mishnical  times,  that  is,  the  times 
of  traditions.  Hitherto,  the  scriptures  were  the  only  rule  of 
faith  and  manners  which  God's  people  studied ;  but  hence- 
forth, traditions  began  to  be  regarded,  till  at  length  they  over- 
bore the  w^ord  of  God  itself,  as  we  find  in  our  Saviour's  time." 

Now,  let  it  even  be  granted  that  the  testimony  of  the  Mishna 
proves  sufficiently  the  existence  and  use  of  liturgies  among  the 
Jews,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  is  it  not  a  reasonable  conclu- 
sion from  the  silence  of  the  scriptures  on  this  subject,  that 
these  liturgies  w^ere  Mishnical  inventions,  and  nothing  more? 
But  let  the  history  of  this  famous  book  be  impartially  con- 
sidered, and  I  ask  if  it  can  fairly  be  regarded  as  proving  any 
thing  ?  Is  it  a  reliable  source  of  testimony  on  any  subject 
whatever?  Prideaux  says,  that  the  Mishna  was  composed 
about  A.  D.  150.  Dr.  Lightfoot  says,  about  A.  D.  190,  in  the 
latter  end  of  the  reign  of  Commodus;  or,  as  some  compute,  in 
the  year  of  Christ,  220.  Dr.  Lardner  fixes  the  date  about  the 
same  as  Dr.  Lightfoot,  at  190.  Now,  giving  to  the  Mishna  all 
possible  credit  to  which,  in  the  judgment  of  any  rational  mind, 
it  can  be  regarded  as  having  a  title,  the  value  of  its  testimony 
in  regard  to  the  point  to  be  proved,  is  that  of  a  mere  oral 
tradition  running  through  a  space  of  about  two  hundred  years, 


240  THE  CHURCH, 

mixed  up  and  confounded  with  a  perfect  infinitude  of  other 
traditions.  I  am  not  very  soHcitous  to  disprove  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  time,  used  a  Hturgy  in  their 
pubHc  worship ;  for  if  they  did  so,  the  argument  is  irresistible, 
that  it  was  a  corruption  of  their  primitive  mode ;  and  our 
Lord's  attendance  upon  that  Hturgical  worship  proves  nothing 
in  its  favor.  Still,  I  claim,  and  the  facts  show,  that  there  is  no 
reliable  evidence  that  they  did  so.  Mr.  Schuyler,  in  his  vene- 
ration for  antiquity,  may  set  a  high  value  on  the  Mishna,  but 
save  as  an  interesting  literary  curiosity,  containing  illustrations 
of  ancient  manners,  and  occasionally,  perhaps,  throwing  some 
light  upon  a  text  of  scripture,  I  do  not  value  it  a  pin.  As  a 
book  to  be  appealed  to  for  the  settlement  of  great  questions  of 
christian  faith  and  practice,  it  is  utterly  contemptible. 

The  reliability  of  the  Mishna  is  as  impeachable  for  the  lack 
of  internal  as  of  external  evidence.  There  is  really  nothing 
appertaining  to  it,  either  in  its  history,  or  in  the  character  of 
its  records,  to  render  it  a  credible  witness  of  any  disputed  fact ; 
and  yet,  as  I  have  said  already,  it  contains  all  the  evidence  there 
is,  that  the  Jewish  worship  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  was 
liturgical ;  all  the  evidence  there  is,  of  a  fact  which  Mr.  Schuy- 
ler assumes  without  a  word  of  exj^lanation,  and  passes  lightly 
over,  as  though  it  were  some  notorious  thing  of  yesterday,  with 
saying  that  "  it  will  be  denied."  It  may  answer  in  his  own 
pulpit,  and  before  his  own  people,  to  dispose  of  things  in  this 
way,  but  it  will  not  do  for  him  to  print  his  sermons.  We  do 
deny  that  the  Jewish  worship  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  was 
liturgical.  We  deny  it  on  the  simple  ground  that  there  is  no 
sort  of  reliable  evidence  that  it  was  so. 

Proceeding  with  his  argument,  our  author  says,  page  162, — 
"  But  we  have  precept  as  well  as  example."  His  example,  be 
it  remembered,  is  in  the  fact  that  our  Lord  was  in  the  habit  of 
attending  the  synagogue  worship  of  the  Jews,  which  on  all 
accounts  was  not  an  example,  because,  first,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  that  worship  was  liturgical ;  and  because,  secondly,  if  it 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  241 

was,  our  Lord's  attendance  upon  it  did  not  at  all  imply  that  he 
approved  of  its  liturgical  character.  Now  for  the  precept. 
"  We  are  told  by  St.  Luke,  that  as  our  Saviour  was  praying, 
when  he  had  ceased,  one  of  the  disciples  said  unto  him,  '  Lord, 
teach  us  to  pray,  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples.'  'And  he 
said  unto  them,  when  ye  pray,  say  Our  Father  which  art  in 
heaven,' "  &c.  "  Now  in  these  words,"  says  our  author,  "  v,^e 
think  we  have  the  plainest  and  fullest  authority  for  a  form  of 
prayer."  I  am  infinitely  amused  with  the  reasoning  that  fol- 
lows, not  to  mention  the  grammar. — "  In  the  first  place,  it 
proves  that  John  the  Baptist  had  given  his  disciples  a  form, 
and  this  farther  proves  that  such  had  been  the  usage  of  the 
Jewish  church."  How  so  ?  I  can  not  see  it  at  all.  The  words 
which  have  just  been  quoted,  prove  that  John  the  Baptist  had 
taught  his  disciples  to  2^?-«y,  but  how  do  they  prove  that  he 
had  given  them  a  form,  in  our  author's  sense  of  that  word  ? 
And  how  does  the  fact  that  John  the  Baptist  had  taught  his 
disciples  to  pray,  prove  that  forms  of  prayer  had  been  used  in 
the  Jewish  church  ?  I  suspect  my  brother  has  in  some  way 
got  possession  of  Peter  Schlemihl's  seven  league  boots.  How 
else  he  could  leap  through  such  immense  distances  to  his  con- 
clusions, I  am  utterly  unable  to  conceive.     He  goes  on  to  say : 

"  Being  the  herald,"  that  is,  John  the  Baptist,  "  being  the 
herald  of  a  new  dispensation,  and  preaching  repentance,  warn- 
ing and  exhorting  the  people  to  prepare  for  the  approach  of 
their  deliverer,  it  was  necessary  that  they  (that  is,  I  suppose, 
John  the  Baptist's  disciples,)  should  have  forms  of  devotion 
adapted  to  their  pecuhar  errand." 

It  was  necessary  that  John's  disciples  should  know  how  to 
prarj,  undoubtedly ;  but  how  was  it  necessary  that  they  should 
have  forms  of  devotion  ?  Those  boots !  I  verily  believe  Mr. 
Schuyler  thinks  that  John  gave  his  disciples  a  liturgy.  He 
proceeds  — 

"  But  had  John  been  in  the  habit  of  trusting  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  moment,  and  to  have  invited  his  disciples  to  join 
12 


242  THE   CHURCH, 

with  him  in  offering  their  extempore  effusions,  we  should  never 
have  heard  of  his  having  taught  them  to  pray.  The  teach- 
ing NECESSARILY  impHes  the  providing  them  with  a  new  form, 
as  our  Saviour  clearly  understood  the  apostles  to  mean.  They 
wished  a  new  form,  suited  to  their  circumstances,  as  John  had 
provided  one,  suited  to  that  of  himself  and  his  disciples." 

It  is  plain  that  Mr.  Schuyler  has  no  idea  of  teaching  on  the 
suhject  of  prayer,  which  does  not  consist  in  the  communication 
of  2^  form  of  words.  Is  that,  I  would  ask,  the  beginning  and 
the  end  of  the  instructions  on  this  subject,  which  he  feels  it  his 
duty  to  give  to  his  parishioners  ?  Has  he  nothing  to  say  in 
regard  to  the  proper  subjects  of  prayer,  or  the  spirit  with  which 
it  is  to  be  offered,  or  other  similar  matters,  commonly  regarded 
as  important?  His  task  then  is  a  very  easy  one.  It  is  all  done 
up  to  his  hands.  When  one  of  his  people  comes  to  him,  ask- 
ing to  be  taught  to  pray,  he  has  nothing  in  the  world  to  do  but 
just  turn  down  the  leaves  of  the  book  at  the  right  places,  and 
tell  him.  There  sir,  say  that,  and  that,  and  that.  His  work  is 
finished  when  he  has  provided  his  inquirer  with  the  proper 
forms.  It  seems  to  me  that  my  friend's  mind  must  be  mysti- 
fied by  recollections  of  his  early  discipline  in  the  nursery — 
early,  yet  I  am  inchned  to  think  recent  —  where  he  was  proba- 
bly taught  to  pray  by  being  required  to  say  after  his  mamma, 
"  Our  Father,"  and  "  Now  I  lay  me." 

Did  our  Saviour  intend  this  prayer,  which  he  gave  to  his 
disciples,  as  a  form,  in  our  author's  sense  of  that  word  ?  He 
says,  page  164 — 

"  That  he  did  not  give  it  merely  as  a  model  after  which  to 
form  their  prayers,  is  evident  from  the  mode  of  expression, — 
*  When  ye  pray,  say.'  Here  it  is  clear  that  the  use  of  the  very 
words  is  enjoined  upon  them." 

Now  I  reply,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  use  of  the  very 
words  is  not  enjoined  upon  them,  but  this  prayer  was  intended 
to  serve  merely  as  a  model  after  which  their  prayers  should  be 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  243 

formed,  and  that  not  a  perfect  one,  if  all  future  time  is 
considered.     Our  reasons  are  the  following : 

First.  The  mode  of  expression,  "when  ye  pray,  say,"  does 
not  convey  the  idea  that  the  very  words  were  to  be  used,  but 
is  clearly  an  ellipsis,  hke  that  in  Matt,  x :  V,  where  our  Lord, 
sending  forth  the  twelve  as  preachers,  says, — "As  ye  go,  preach, 
saying  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  No  one,  I  believe, 
supposes  that  this  was  a  form  of  preaching,  which  they  were 
to  follow  in  the  very  words.  Our  Saviour  simply  indicated  to 
them  what  the  general  tenor  and  substance  of  their  preaching 
must  be.  So,  most  manifestly,  we  are  to  understand  him  in  the 
instance  we  are  considering. 

Second.  The  same  prayer,  given  on  another  occasion,  as  re- 
corded by  Matthew,  was  introduced  by  Christ  in  terms  which 
directly  express  our  idea  concerning  it. — "After  this  manner, 
therefore,  pray  ye."  Mr.  Schuyler  says,  that  it  was  "  designed 
both  as  a  form  and  as  a  model^''  and  that  as  given  in  Luke  it 
is  the  former,  in  Matthew  the  latter.  That  is  to  say,  at  one 
time  our  Lord  meant  that  the  prayer  which  he  taught  his  dis- 
ciples, should  be  regarded  as  a  form,  to  be  used  in  the  very 
words  in  which  he  gave  it,  and  at  another  time  he  meant  that 
it  should  not  be  a  form  at  all,  but  simply  a  general  j^attern  or 
outline  of  prayer.  In  other  words,  he  had  no  settled  purpose 
in  regard  to  it ! 

Is  our  author  not  capable  of  perceiving  that  the  Lord's 
prayer  must  be  either  a  model  or  a  form?  That  w^e  may  use 
it  as  a  form,  no  one  denies,  for  if  it  is  a  good  model,  it  must  be 
a  good  form,  when  we  choose  to  employ  it  as  such.  But  we 
are  looking  now  at  the  use  of  it  as  authoritative  and  obligatory 
in  one  character  or  the  other.  If  it  is  imposed  by  Chrisfs 
command  as  a  form,  then  it  can  not  be  a  model,  but  must  be 
a  form  always,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places.  To  say  that  the 
same  authority  has  given  it  to  us  as  a  mere  model  also,  is  to 
say  that  the  command,  imposing  it  on  us  as  a  form,  is  revoked, 
or  nullified. 


244  THE  CHURCH, 

Now  in  Matthew,  chapter  sixth,  we  have  this  prayer,  given 
by  Christ,  according  to  our  author's  own  admission  as  a  simple 
model.  We  say,  therefore,  so  far  as  an  obhgatory  use  of  it  is 
concerned,  it  is  always  a  model  and  nothing  else. 

Third.  The  Lord's  prayer,  in  the  different  places  in  which  it 
occurs,  is  expressed  in  different  words.  If  it  had  been  intended 
as  a  form.,  we  maintain  that  it  would  have  been  expressed 
always  in  the  same  identical  terms.  Calvin,  in  commenting  on 
this  subject,  says, — "  The  Son  of  God  did  not  determine  the 
exact  words  that  were  to  be  used,  so  that  from  that  form  which 
he  dictated,  it  w^ould  be  unlawful  to  depart ;  but  he  rather 
wished  to  direct  and  regulate  our  desires,  that  they  should  not 
wander  beyond  these  boundaries;  whence  we  infer  that  the 
rule  of  praying  rightly,  which  he  has  given  to  us,  consists  not 
in  words,  but  in  things. 

Fourth.  We  never  find  the  Lord's  prayer  used  as  a  form  by 
any  of  the  apostles.  We  have  the  record  of  prayers  offered 
by  them,  but  never  this  prayer,  or  any  portion  of  it.  This 
is  very  singular.  How  will  Mr.  S.  account  for  it  ?  Grotius 
says, — "  Christ  did  not  command  the  ivords  to  be  recited,  but 
that  we  should  take  the  inaterials  of  our  prayers  thence,"  and 
"  that  though  it  may  be  used  with  great  profit  as  a  form,  yet  we 
do  not  read  that  ever  the  apostles  used  it  so."  Maldonatus,  in 
commenting  on  this  prayer,  as  found  in  Matthew,  says, —  "  Not 
necessarily  with  these  words  are  we  to  pray,  but  with  this  or 
similar  meaning;  for  we  never  read  that  the  apostles  were 
in  the  habit  of  praying  in  these  exact  words."  'And  Rev. 
Thomas  Scott,  in  his  commentary  on  the  same  place,  thus 
speaks, —  "  It  may  often  be  proper  to  use  the  very  words,  but 
it  is  not  always  necessary,  for  we  do  not  find  that  the  apostles 
thus  used  it ;  but  we  ought  always  to  pray  after  the  manner  of 
it."  Now,  I  suppose,  the  apostles  must  have  known  just  in 
what  sense,  and  for  what  purpose  this  prayer  was  given  to 
them,  and  that  we  may  take  their  usage  as  tolerably  decisive 
authority  in  regard  to  it. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  24^ 

Fifth.  We  say,  that  as  a  form  of  prayer,  designed  for  all 
time,  the  Lord's  prayer  is  defective, —  and  that,  in  an  essential 
point.  It  might  do  for  Unitarians,  but  not  for  us.  We  believe 
that  since  the  death  and  glorification  of  Christ,  no  prayer  is 
complete  or  can  be  acceptable,  v/hich  is  not  offered  in  his  name. 
We  must  come  to  God  by,  and  in  the  name  of  our  high  priest. 
Now,  the  utter  absence  of  any  mention  of.  Christ,  or  allusion 
to  his  person  or  work  in  the  prayer  under  consideration,  we 
maintain,  is  perfectly  conclusive  against  the  idea  of  its  having 
been  intended  as  a  form  for  christians. 

Sixth.  There  are  innumerable  special  benefits  which  every 
soul  needs  to  receive  from  God,  and  that  daily,  which  are  not 
named  in  this  prayer.  This,  however,  I  do  not  deem  impor- 
tant. I  think  I  have  furnished  argument  enough  on  this  point. 
If  Episcopahans  believe  that  the  Saviour  meant  to  have  his 
very  luords  in  Luke  used,  by  christians,  as  a  form,  I  would 
like  to  know  why  they  vary  from  it  in  their  own  prayer-book  ? 
I  have  had  the  curiosity  to  look  into  their  book  of  common 
prayer,  and  not  an  instance  do  I  find,  where  the  words,  either 
of  Matthew  or  of  Luke,  are  precisely  followed.  The  words 
of  Luke,  which  it  is  pretended  were  especially  given  as  a 
form,  are  hardly  followed  at  all.  How  is  this,  Mr.  Schuyler  ? 
How  dare  you  to  deviate  ? 

Suppose  we  should  grant  that  the  Lord's  prayer  was  intended 
as  a  form,  to  be  used  as  such,  by  christians  in  all  ages  of  the 
world  ?  What  then  ?  Would  our  author  have  the  proof  that 
he  is  seeking  after  ?  Would  it  follow  that  the  New  Testament 
enjoins  or  countenances  a  complete  liturgical  service  for  the 
worship  of  God  in  the  church  ? 

There  is  a  gem,  in  the  way  of  style  and  argument,  on  page 
166,  thrown  in,  in  the  form  of  a  note,  over  the  signature  of 
W.  S.  In  style  it  is  ornamental,  —  in  argument,  it  is  what  is 
sometimes  called  a  clincher.  Its  piquancy  and  pertinency  are 
truly  remarkable.  I  quote  it  here  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the 
amiable  author. 


946  THE  CHURCH, 

"If  it  had  been  tlie  desire  of  our  Saviour," — so  W.  S. 
writes,  "  to  have  recommended  to  his  disciples,  and  through 
them  to  us,  that  they  should  conduct  pubHc  worship  by  an 
extemporaneous  method,  what  may  we  expect  would  have  been 
his  reply  to  those  who  asked  him  that  he  should  teach  them 
to  pray  ?  May  we  not  conclude  that  he  would  have  met  their 
request  with  some  such  response  as  the  following :  '  Go  your 
way,  and  make  your  own  prayers ;  use  such  prayers  as  shall 
come  into  your  minds  when  required.  Are  ye  spiritual^  and 
yet  desire  to  be  taught  the  method  of  prayer?  Can  you 
expect  from  me  a  form  of  prayer  ?  Rather  rely  U23on  your 
gifts,  and  pray  extemporaneously. 

"  But  very  different  was  the  instruction  he  gave  them ;  for 
he  furnished  them  at  once  with  both  a  form  and  a  model.  He 
recited  a  prayer  which  they  were  to  use.  They  used  it,  and 
the  church  has  used  it  in  every  age.  It  has  been  ever  since, 
and  will  always  be  a  form  and  a  model,  and  is  a  standing 
monument  of  a  precomposed  method  of  worship." 

So  far  as  Mr.  Schuyler  is  concerned,  I  think  I  may  say  that 
he  gains  no  assistance  in  his  argument  from  the  Lord's  prayer. 
What  next  ?  Oh,  read,  and  admire !  —  page  166, —  "  That  the 
apostles  worshiped  after  a  form,  is  e-sddent  from  the  fact  that 
Christ  prescribed  one  for  them ;  ( ! )  and  this  fact  furnishes  us 
with  strong  presumptive  proof,  that  when  they  came  to  form 
and  regulate  the  services  of  the  christian  church,  they  would  be 
guided  in  this  respect  by  the  will  of  their  master,  thus  clearly 
expressed."  Excellent!  how  the  tide  of  my  brother's  argu- 
ment bears  him  on !  He  certainly  has  the  most  astonishing 
facility  in  proving  things,  that  ever  it  has  been  my  lot  to  meet 
with.     He  continues: 

"  Wherever  they  (i.  e.  the  apostles,)  went,  they  sought  the 
Jews,  and  taught  them  in  their  synagogues ;  hence,  in  their 
early  ministry,  the  worship  which  preceded  their  preaching 
was  that  of  the  Jewish  church,  which  we  have  shown  to  have 
been  after  a  prescribed  form :  and  we  can  not  therefore  doubt, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  247 

but  when  they  came  to  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  want- 
ing in  the  church,  the  putting  forth  of  a  Hturgy  would  be 
among  their  first  duties ;  and  that  it  was  so,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  we  have  no  record  of  extempore  prayer  in  church 
worship,  in  any  part  of  Christendom,  from  the  apostle's  days  to 
the  time  of  the  reformation."  The  argument  here,  derived 
from  the  fact  that  the  apostles  took  part  in  the  synagogue  wor- 
ship of  the  Jews,  and  preached  in  the  synagogues,  is  precisely 
like  that  which  has  been  already  answered,  derived  from  the 
similar  practice  of  our  Lord.  If  a  liturgical  service  was  used 
in  the  synagogues,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  does  not  show 
that  they  approved  of  it.  They  preached  the  gospel  wherever 
they  could  find  hearers,  whether  in  the  synagogue,  or  in  the 
street,  or  in  the  market  place,  and  they  did  not  make  difiiculties 
of  things  which  they  could  not  help.  Does  Mr.  Schuyler 
think,  that  if  he  were  to  invite  me  to  preach  in  his  church,  in 
connection  with  his  reading  of  the  prayers,  I  would  not  do  it  ? 
I  certainly  would  not  refuse  to  engage  in  such  an  act  of  good 
christian  fellowship ;  and  am  very  far  from  thinking  that  I 
should  thereby  compromise  my  principles  on  the  subject  of 
liturgies. — Very  possibly  I  should  preach  him  a  sermon  on  the 
superior  advantages  of  free  prayer.  But  we  have  seen  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jewish  synagogue  worship  at  the 
time  referred  to,  was  liturgical.  Mr.  Schuyler  says,  that  he 
has  "  shown  it  to  have  been  after  a  prescribed  form ; "  but 
where,  or  when,  or  how  ?  I  remember  he  has  said  that  no 
one  will  deny  that  it  w^as  so;  but  is  this  showing  that  it  was 
so  ?  He  has  neither  shown  it,  nor  attempted  to  show  it.  From 
this  utterly  unfounded  assumption  in  regard  to  the  apostles,  he 
infers,  "  that  when  they  came  to  put  in  order  the  things  that 
were  wanting  in  the  church,  the  putting  forth  of  a  liturgy 
would  be  among  their  first  duties."  This  is  mere  babyism. 
The  apostles  put  forth  a  liturgy!  Where  is  it?  Does  Mr. 
Schuyler  suppose,  that  if  the  apostles  had  given  the  church  a 
liturgy,  it  would  not  have  been  preserved  ?     Does  he  suppose, 


248  THE  CHURCH, 

that  so  far  from  not  being  preserved,  there  would  not  be  even 
any  trace  or  record  of  it  ?  If  the  apostles  gave  the  church  a 
liturgy,  it  was  inspired.  Why  was  it  not  enrolled  with  the 
sacred  canon,  and  preserved  by  the  same  watchful  care  of 
Divine  Providence  which  has  kept  the  other  scriptures  ?  My 
brother  imposes  on  his  own  credulity.  No  such  liturgy,  as  he 
speaks  of,  was  ever  in  existence.  It  is  simply  absurd  to  claim 
the  contrary.  That  the  apostles,  among  their  first  acts,  gave 
the  church  a  liturgy,  we  are  told,  "  is  e\ddent,  from  the  fact 
that  we  have  no  record  of  extempore  prayer  in  church  worship 
in  any  pai't  of  Christendom,  from  their  days  to  the  time  of  the 
reformation."  Have  we  not?  Is  Mr.  Schuyler  ignorant,  or 
does  he  mean  to  deceive  and  impose  upon  his  readers  ?  We 
shall  see  shortly  what  the  fact  on  this  subject  is.  We  shall 
see  indeed,  whether  we  have  any  record  of  preGomi^osed  forms, 
until  long  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  when  they  came  in 
with  other  corruptions  of  the  pure  and  primitive  simplicity  of 
christian  worship. 

My  brother's  scriptural  argument  is  ended,  and  if  he  himself 
has  not  fully  vindicated  my  "  bold  assertion,"  then  I  know  not 
what  vindication  could  be  desired.  I  said  the  scriptures  con- 
tained no  authority  for  the  use  of  precomposed  forms  of  prayer. 
Has  he  shown  the  contraiy  ?  Has  not  his  utter  failure  to  refute 
my  assertion,  proved  most  conclusively  that  it  is  true  ?  I  said, 
there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  in  the  scriptures  that  the 
churches  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  used  forms  of  prayer,  or 
that  a  question  was  ever  raised  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of 
using  them.  Has  he  succeeded  in  producing  the  shadow  of  an 
evidence  ? 

Since  Mr.  S.  has  been  unable  to  find  any  authority  for  forms, 
let  us  see  how  the  matter  stands  in  regard  to  free  prayer;  and 
I  say  truly,  the  scriptures  contain  all  kinds  of  testimony  against 
forms,  and  in  favor  of  free  prayer. 

First.  They  teach  by  their  silence.  Free  prayer  is  nahiral; 
forms  are  artificial.     If  it  was  the  divine  intention,  therefore, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  249 

that  the  former  and  not  the  latter  should  be  used,  nothing  wax 
necessary  beyond  the  mere  injunction  of  the  duty  of  prayer. 
If,  however,  it  was  the  divine  intention  that  the  latter  and  not 
the  former  should  be  used,  it  was  necessary,  besides  the  injuno 
tion  of  prayer,  that  there  should  be  a  special  injunction  of  the 
use  of  forms.  For  example :  if  I,  as  a  parent,  am  willing  to 
attend  to  the  merely  verbal  requests  of  my  child,  it  is  needless 
for  me  to  say  any  thing  to  him  on  the  subject ;  for,  as  that  is 
the  natural  manner  of  a  child's  preferring  his  requests  to  a 
father,  he  will  adopt  it  of  course.  But  if  I  wish  him  to  prefer 
his  requests  in  writing,  I  must  tell  him  so  distinctly;  this  is 
artificial,  and  a  positive  injunction  is  indispensable.  Now  the 
fact  that  in  the  scriptures  we  are  simply  enjoined  to  pray,  to 
make  our  requests  known  unto  God,  to  call  upon  his  name, 
while  not  a  word  is  said  about  writing  our  prayers  down  and 
reading  them,  is  proof,  of  the  most  conclusive  kind,  that  it  was 
intended  they  should  be  the  free  expressions  of  our  desires,  and 
not  read  from  precomposed  forms. 

The  scriptures  teach  by  their  silence,  in  another  way.  There 
is  no  mention  in  a  single  place  of  prayers  being  read,  or  of  the 
use  of  a  booh.  We  have  innumerable  instances  of  prayer,  but 
never  one  of  a  read  prayer,  or  of  a  prayer  repeated  memoriter. 
They  record  the  instructions  of  our  Lord,  but  never  a  word  that 
he  uttered  on  the  subject  of  a  liturgy.  They  record  the  acts 
of  the  apostles  in  regulating  the  church  and  setting  in  order  the 
things  that  remained  after  Christ's  ascension,  but  never  once 
breathe  a  syllable  on  the  subject  of  their  composing  a  book  of 
prayer.  They  tell  us  of  the  apostles'  preaching  in  the  syna- 
gogues, and  of  their  preaching  in  the  market-places,  and  of  their 
preaching  in  the  streets,  but  never  hint  of  their  reading  the  ser- 
vice. Episcopalians  think,  that  in  the  public  worship  of  God 
the  reading  of  the  church  service  is  the  great  thing.  With 
them,  this  is  primary,  the  preaching  is  secondary.  How  can 
they  explain  this  profound  silence  of  the  scriptures  respecting 
the  prayer  book?  respecting  the  great  thing?  Why  havd  w« 
12* 


250  THE  CHURCH, 

in  no  place  some  such  record  as  the  following :  "  Now  when  the 
prayers  had  been  read  by  Barnabas,  Paul  stood  up  and  preached 
unto  the  people,  saying,"  (fee  ?  Mr.  Schuyler  tells  us,  page  167, 
*'  Wherever  they,  i.  e.  the  apostles,  went,  they  sought  the  Jews, 
and  taught  them  in  their  synagogues;  hence,  in  their  early 
ministry,  the  worship  which  preceded  their  preaching,  was  that 
of  the  Jewish  church,"  which  he  pretends  was  liturgical,  i.  e. 
consisted  of  a  precomposed  service  of  prayer.  Compare  this 
statement  with  a  simple  record  —  Acts  xiii:  14-16, —  "But 
when  they  departed  from  Perga,  they  came  to  Antioch  in 
Pisidia,  and  went  into  the  synagogue,  on  the  sabbath  day,  and 
sat  down,  and  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  sent  unto  them  sa}dng.  Ye  men 
and  brethren,  if  ye  have  any  word  of  exhortation  for  the  people, 
say  on.  Then  Paul  stood  up,"  <fec.  Where  is  Mr.  Schuyler's 
service  of  prayer  ?  "  The  law  and  the  prophets"  he  knows 
were  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  simply.  Why  is  the 
reading  of  these  so  distinctly  mentioned,  and  no  mention  made 
of  the  other  ?  Look  at  every  similar  record,  and  over  each  one, 
ask,  where  was  the  prayer  book  ?  Echo  will  answer,  "  Where 
was  the  prayer-book  ? "  Still,  my  brother  will  have  it,  that  in 
every  such  instance,  the  preaching  of  the  apostles  was  preceded 
by  a  liturgical  service  of  prayer ! 

Second.  The  scriptures  convey  instruction  on  this  point  by 
their  exhortations,  and  their  preceptive  teaching  on  the  general 
subject  of  prayer.  Eph.  vi:  18, —  "Praying  always  with  all 
prayer  and  supplication  in  the  Spirit,  and  watching  thereunto 
with  all  perseverance  and  supplication  for  all  saints." — I  will 
only  ask  the  candid  reader  whether  this  looks  as  though  Paul 
expected  a  hook  to  be  used  ?  Again ;  turn  to  Rom.  xv :  30 
31, — "Now  I  beseech  you  brethren  —  that  ye  strive  together 
with  me  in  your  prayers  to  God  for  me,  that  I  may  be  delivered 
from  them  that  do  not  believe  in  Judea ;  and  that  my  service 
which  I  have  for  Jerusalem,  (he  was  the  bearer  of  the  contri- 
butions of  foreign  christians  to  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,) 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  251 

may  be  accepted  of  the  saints."  Does  this  seem  to  intimate 
that  they  were  restricted  to  the  forms  of  a  book,  or,  that  they 
had  the  largest  Hberty  to  introduce  into  their  prayers  all  sub- 
jects whatsoever,  that  might  seem  to  be  proper  and  expedient  ? 
Look  now  at  1  Cor.  xiv:  13,  and  onward.  I  call  attention 
particularly  to  this  passage.  The  apostle  is  speaking  expressly 
of  praying  in  the  church,  be  it  observed.  He  says,  "  Wherefore 
let  him  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue,  pray  that  he 
may  interpret."  That  is,  according  to  Macknight,  "  so  as  some 
one  may  interpret."  He  adds,  "Else  when  thou  shalt  bless 
with  the  Spirit,  how  shall  he  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the 
unlearned,  say  amen  at  thy  giving  of  thanks  ?  seeing  he  under- 
standeth  not  what  thou  sayest,  for  thou  verily  givest  thanks 
well,  but  the  other  is  not  edified."  Now,  I  ask,  how  could 
there  be  prayer  in  the  church  in  an  unknown  tongue,  if  the 
church  was  tied  up  to  certain  specified  forms ;  if  there  was  a 
prayer  book  ? "  If  Mr.  S.  should  reply,  that  they  might  have 
recited  the  authorized  prayers  in  an  unknown  tongue,  then  I  ask 
again,  where  was  the  need  of  an  interpreter  ?  If  each  man  had 
the  prayers  before  him,  written  down  in  a  language  which  he 
perfectly  understood,  could  he  not  join  in  them  by  simply  look- 
ing over  in  his  book  ?  Could  he  not  know,  without  having 
them  interpreted,  when  to  say  amen,  and  what  he  was  saying 
amen  to  ?  I  challenge  any  one  to  explain  this  passage  on  any 
other  assumption  than  that,  in  the  early  and  apostolic  church 
the  prayers  were  free,  uttered  as  they  were  conceived  in  the 
heart  of  the  person  offering  them  ? 

In  first  Timothy,  ii:  1,  2,  Paul  says  —  "I  exhort,  therefore, 
first  of  all,  that  prayers,  intercessions,  and  giving  of  thanks, 
be  made  for  all  men;  for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in 
authority,"  &c.  Why  such  an  exhortation,  if  the  prayers  to 
be  said  in  the  church  were  all  put  down  already,  in  set  forms 
and  order  ?  The  exhortation  would  appear  very  proper  on  the 
supposition  that  the  prayers  were  free,  but  entirely  superfluous 


252  THE  CHURCH, 

on  the  supposition  that  they  were  all  prescribed  and  arranged 
in  a  liturgy. 

I  might  quote  such  texts  as  these  indefinitely.  One  or  two 
more,  however,  shall  suffice.  Take  such  a  passage  as  that  in 
Phil,  iv :  6,  —  "  Be  careful  for  nothing,  but  in  every  thing,  by 
prayer  and  supplication,  let  your  requests  be  made  known  unto 
God."  Was  there  ever  seen  on  earth  a  prayer-book,  in  the  use 
of  which  this  injunction  might  be  followed  ?  Is  it  possible, 
except  by  free  prayer,  to  obey  either  the  letter  or  the  spirit 
of  the  apostle's  exhortation  ?  To  show  that  the  language  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  coincident  with  that  of  the  new,  let  the 
exhortation  of  David,  in  the  sixty-second  psalm,  be  considered  — 
"  Trust  in  him  (God)  at  all  times,  ye  people ;  pour  out  your 
heart  before  him."  Now,  what  idea  does  any  one  get  of  this 
pouring  out  of  the  heart  beforfe  God  ?  I  think  it  is  of  some- 
thing widely  different  from  reading  prayers  out  of  a  book.  So 
also  it  may  be  said  of  the  prophet's  exhortation,  Isaiah  Iv:  6, — 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found ;  call  ye  upon  him 
while  he  is  near."  Only  to  think  of  a  sinner,  agonized  and 
trembling  under  a  sense  of  his  exposure  to  divine  wrath,  and 
of  the  awful  danger  of  ha\-ing  the  last  moment  of  mercy  slip 
from  him  unimproved,  reading  his  prayer  out  of  a  book! 
thumbing  over  the  leaves  of  a  prayer  book  to  find  a  petition 
suitable  to  his  case,  while  his  heart  is  bursting  to  utter  in  the 
ear  of  heaven  its  loud  and  earnest  cry  for  deliverance !  Does 
any  one  suppose  that  the  prophet  had  such  a  thing  in  his  mind 
as  this  ?  I  affirm  that  the  whole  current  style  of  the  hortatory 
and  preceptive  teaching  of  the  bible,  on  the  subject  of  prayer, 
implies  that  prayer  is  to  be  free,  and  is  directly  adverse  to  the 
notion  of  prescribed  forms  and  liturgies.     And  now, 

Third.  For  the  scripture  teaching  by  examples.  The  prayer 
of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  the  best  instance 
of  pubHc  prayer,  of  prayer  in  the  presence  of  a  congregation, 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  have  considered.  Ex- 
amples from  the  New  Testament  are  especially  required,  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  253 

there  are  enough  of  them.  First,  look  at  the  record  in  Acts 
i:  13,  14. —  "And  when  they  were  come  in,  they  went  up  into 
an  upper  room,  where  abode  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and 
Andrew,  PhiHp  and  Thomas,  Bartholomew  and  Matthew, 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  the 
brother  of  James.  These  all  continued  with  one  accord  in 
prayer  and  supplication,  with  the  women,  and  Mary  the  mo- 
ther of  Jesus,  and  with  his  brethren."  Here  is  a  fair  example 
of  social  prayer.  Indeed,  it  was  the  church  that  was  gathered 
together  in  this  upper  chamber.  Does  Mr.  Schuyler  believe 
that  they  used,  on  this  occasion,  precomposed  forms  ?  Has  he 
even  a  suspicion  that  they  did  so  ?  If  he  does  beheve  or 
suspect  it,  wiW  he  venture  an  opinion  as  to  where  the  written 
forms  suited  to  the  unprecedented  exigency  of  that  time  were 
found  ?  Does  the  simple  statement  of  the  narrative  look  as 
though  they  prayed  from  a  book  ?  Would  it  naturally  suggest 
such  an  idea  to  any  sane  mind  ?  "  These  all  continued,"  not 
in  the  reading  of  prayers^  but  "  in  prayer  and  supplication," 
in  pouring  out,  undoubtedly,  their  hearts  before  God.  In  the 
same  chapter,  read  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  verses. — 
"  And  they  prayed  and  said.  Thou  Lord  which  knowest  the 
hearts  of  all  men,"  &c.  The  occasion  was  that  of  choosing 
Matthias  by  lot,  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas.  This  prayer  was 
offered  in  an  assembly  of  the  church,  on  a  great  and  solemn 
occasion.  Was  it  part  of  a  liturgy  then  existing  ?  If  so,  by 
whom  was  that  liturgy  composed  ?  It  will  not  be  pretended 
that  the  apostles,  at  so  early  a  period,  had  composed  one,  nor 
that  such  a  prayer  could  have  been  found  in  any  liturgy 
in  use  among  the  Jews.  Whence,  then,  was  it  obtained? 
Now,  let  any  one  read  the  prayer;  short,  all  contained  in  two 
little  verses ;  simple,  just  stating  their  request  that  God  would 
show  by  the  lots  about  to  be  cast,  whether  he  had  chosen  Mat- 
thias or  Barsabas,  and  let  him  say,  if  the  supposition  is  unrea- 
sonable, that  it  was  conceived  and  uttered  at  the  moment.  Can 
any  one  doubt  that  this  was  the  real  fact  ?     Again.     Take  the 


254  THE  CHURCH, 

prayer  recorded  in  Acts  iv :  24-30.  Let  the  circumstances  be 
considered  in  whicli  this  prayer  was  uttered.  The  church  was 
in  sore  affliction.  Persecution  was  beginning  to  rage.  Peter 
and  John  had  just  been  imprisoned  and  cruelly  treated,  for 
preaching  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  were  now  only  set  at 
liberty  under  strict  charge  to  preach  no  more.  Dangers  were 
pressing  upon  them  on  every  hand,  and  nothing,  to  human 
eyes,  appeared  more  probable,  than  that  the  new  faith  was 
about  to  be  crushed  by  the  mighty  power  of  its  adversaries. 
When  Peter  and  John  were  let  go,  we  are  told,  they  went  to 
their  own  company,  i.  e.  to  the  church,  whom  they  found 
assembled,  doubtless  praying  already  for  their  imprisoned 
brethren,  and  considering  of  the  state  of  their  affairs ;  "  and 
they  reported  all  that  the  chief  priests  and  elders  had  said 
unto  them.  And  when  they  heard  that,  they  hfted  up  their 
voice  to  God  with  one  accord,  and  said.  Lord,  thou  art  God, 
which  hast  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in 
them  is ;  who  by  the  mouth  of  thy  servant  David  hast  said. 
Why  did  the  heathen  rage,  and  the  people  imagine  vain 
things  ?  The  kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the  rulers  were 
gathered  together  against  the  Lord,  and  against  his  Christ. 
For  of  a  truth  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  thou  hast 
anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles  and 
people  of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  for  to  do  whatsoever 
thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before  to  be  done.  And 
now  Lord,  behold  their  threatenings ;  and  grant  unto  thy  ser- 
vants, that  with  all  boldness  they  may  speak  thy  word,  by 
stretching  forth  thine  hand  to  heal,  and  that  signs  and  won- 
ders may  be  done  by  the  name  of  thy  holy  child  Jesus." 
Now  let  any  person  attentively  consider  this  prayer,  so  season- 
able in  its  appeals,  so  evidently  framed  to  meet  the  very  wants 
and  exigencies  of  the  time,  so  full  of  allusions  to  events  actually 
transpiring,  and  say  if  he  will,  that  it  was  part  of  an  established 
liturgy  —  that  it  was  read  from  a  book.     Let  it  not  be  forgotten 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  255 

that  this  is  an  example  of  public  prayer,  of  prayer  in  an  assem- 
bly of  christians,  in  the  church. 

Once  more.  Acts  xii :  5,—  "  And  Peter  was  kept  in  prison, 
but  prayer  was  made  without  ceasing,  of  the  church  unto  God 
for  him."  Was  this  done,  does  any  one  suppose,  by  a  precom- 
posed  form  ?  Was  there  a  liturgy  at  that  time,  which  contained 
a  form  of  prayer  suitable  for  such  a  crisis  ?  The  Episcopal 
prayer-book  may  contain  a  petition  that  God  will  show  his 
"  pity  upon  all  prisoners  and  captives,"  but  where  has  it  prayers 
that  would  have  served  the  purpose  of  the  church  when  they 
were  met  to  beseech  God  on  behalf  of  Peter,  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  his  enemies  ?  If  there  is  no  liturgy  now  that  is 
sufficiently  copious  to  meet  such  a  case,  can  it  be  supposed  that 
there  was  one  at  that  early  day  ?  It  is  idle  to  debate.  The 
church,  on  that  occasion,  had  assembled  to  pour  out  their  hearts 
before  God,  to  plead  on  their  brother's  behalf  in  such  words  as 
the  spirit  of  God  should  dictate  to  their  minds. 

More  examples  are  not  wanting,  but  these  will  suffice. 
And  now,  although  I  am  swelling  this  article  beyond  all 
expectation,  I  must  take  the  trouble,  seeing  that  Mr.  Schuyler 
has  said,  "  We  have  no  record  of  extempore  prayer  in  church 
worship,  in  any  part  of  Christendom,  from  the  apostles'  days 
to  the  time  of  the  reformation,"  to  adduce  some  testimony  on 
this  point. 

I  might  assert  that  what  he  says  is  just  opposite  the  truth^ 
and  I  suppose  my  assertion  would  weigh  as   much  as  his. 

But  I  am  not  content  with  barely  balancing  his  assertion, I 

wish  to  prove  that  it  is  not  true.  We  have  seen  already  that 
there  is  ample  record  of  extempore  prayers  in  the  very  time  of 
the  apostles.     Now  for  the  times  after  the  apostles. 

The  truth  on  this  subject  is  very  briefly  and  clearly  stated 
by  the  late  Dr.  Ebenezer  Porter,  President  of  the  Andover 
Theological  Seminary.  In  his  Lectures  on  Homiletics,  page 
292,  he  says,  —  "When,  and  how,  then,  did  liturgies  come 
into  use?     I  answer  promptly,  nothing  of  the  kind,  that  is 


256  THE  CHURCH, 

genuine,  can  be  fixed  upon,  for  tlie  first  three  hundred  years 
after  Christ.  When  the  Arian  and  Pelagian  doctrines  began 
seriously  to  disturb  the  church,  various  forms  of  expression, 
occasioned  by  public  controversy,  gradually  insinuated  them- 
selves into  the  language  of  prayer ;  and  it  was  deemed  neces- 
sary by  the  council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  364  or  365,  to  require 
by  ecclesiastical  regulations,  that  ministers,  instead  of  using  the 
liberty  before  enjoyed,  should  always  keep  to  one  form  of 
prater,  L  e.  should  not  pray  '  pro  arbitrio,  sed  semper  easdem 
preces.'  This  form,  however,  each  minister  might  compose  for 
himself  provided  that  '  before  using  it  he  should  consult  with 
learned  and  experienced  brethren.'  This  regulation  was  ex- 
plained, as  already  in  existence,  by  the  council  of  Carthage, 
A.  D.  397.  About  twenty  years  later,  that  is,  A.  D.  416,  the 
council  of  Milan  ordained  that  none  should  use  set  forms  of 
prayer,  except  such  as  were  approved  in  a  synod.  The  result 
of  my  inquiries  is,  that  no  forms  of  prayer  were  prescribed  by 
public  authority  till  the  fifth  century.  Before  this,  forms  were 
used  at  the  option  of  individual  ministers." 

Until  A.  D.  364,  then,  every  minister  prayed  '''■pro  arbi- 
trio,^'' that  is,  according  to  his  own  judgment,  or  the  dictates 
of  his  own  mind.  Prayer  was  free.  Subsequently,  until  the 
year  416,  each  minister  was  required  to  write  his  prayers  out, 
and  having  had  them  approved  by  "  learned  and  experienced 
brethren,"  to  use  "  semper  easdem  preces  " —  always  the  same 
prayers.  After  A.  D.  416,  the  ministers  ceased  to  make  their 
own  prayers,  and  forms  were  prescribed  by  the  synod.  Was 
Mr.  Schuyler  utterly  ignorant  of  these  simple  facts  of  history  ? 

Authorities  for  free  and  extempore  prayer  in  the  primitive 
church  are  not  wanting.  I  shall  cite  a  few  of  the  many  that 
I  have  before  me.  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  second  century, 
describing  the  manner  of  oflfering  up  prayer  in  the  church,  in 
his  time,  says  —  Apol.  ii,  in  fine.  p.  162  —  "He,  ^.  e.  the  presi- 
dent, offers  prayers  and  thanksgivings  according  as  he  is  able" 
i.  e.  according  to  the  ability  that  he  possesses.     Such  is  a  fair, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  257 

rendering  of  the  Greek.  Some  advocates  of  liturgies  have 
pretended  that  this  expression,  "  as  he  is  able^^  means  according 
to  the  fervency  of  his  desires;  that  it  has  respect  to  the  spirit^ 
rather  than  to  the  substance  and  words  of  his  prayers.  But 
this  is  a  bare  subterfuge,  and  a  very  poor  one.  No  one  would 
think  of  saying  that  my  brother  Schuyler  "  offers  prayers  and 
thanksgivings  "  in  his  church  every  sabbath  day,  according  as 
he  is  able,  or  according  to  the  ability  he  possesses.  No ;  that 
is  the  charge  against  us  Presbyterian  ministers ;  that  we  are 
left,  each  of  us,  to  pray  according  to  our  ability,  and  that  many 
of  us,  lacking  the  ability,  make  shocking  work  of  it;  while 
Episcopal  rectors,  having  all  such  a  beautiful  liturgy  which  they 
are  required  to  use,  are  enabled,  though  of  feeble  capacity,  to 
make  their  ser\^ces  always  edifying  and  pleasing.  To  test  the 
meaning  of  Justin  in  this  place,  we  may  refer  to  another 
instance  in  his  writings,  where  the  same  expression  in  his  own 
Greek  occurs,  as  that  upon  which  we  are  now  debating.  He 
says  —  Apol.  ii,  in  fine.  p.  157  —  "Having,  therefore,  exhorted 
you  as  ive  are  able,  we  shall  be  henceforth  blameless  if  you 
do  not  believe."  What  the  expiession,  "as  we  are  able" 
means  here,  no  one  can  be  at  a  loss  to  tell.  The  testimony, 
therefore,  of  this  father  is,  that  in  his  time,  the  prayers  offered 
in  the  church  were  extempore. 

My  next  authority  is  Hernias,  who  wrote  some  forty  years 
earlier  than  Justin.  I  quote  from  the  Pastor,  lib.  2,  — "When 
a  man  who  has  the  spirit  of  God,  comes  into  the  church  of 
just  men,  who  have  the  faith  of  God,  and  prayer  is  made  to 
God,J^then  the  holy  messenger  for  the  divinity  fills  him  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  he  speaks  in  the  congregation  as  God 
would  have  him^  That  is,  he  prays  as  God  would  have  him, 
for  it  is  of  prayer  that  Hernias  is  speaking.  Does  not  this 
mean,  he  prays  as  he  is  prompted  at  the  time  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. ^  Can  it  mean  any  thing  else  ?  Thus  the  testimony  of 
Justin  is  confirmed. 


258  THE   CHURCH, 

Tertullian,  A.  D.  200,  uses  the  following  language, —  Apol. 
c.  80.  He  also  is  describing  the  manner  of  christian  worship. 
— "  Looking  up  to  heaven,  they  spread  abroad  their  hands, 
because  innocent,  with  their  heads  uncovered,  because  not 
ashamed,  and  without  a  monitor,  because  they  prayed  from  the 
heart."  This  passage  presents  the  most  unequivocal  evidence, 
that  in  Tertullian's  time,  prayer  in  the  public  worship  of  God 
was  extempore,  and  not  by  written  forms.  I  have  a  similar 
testimony  from  Clemens  Alexandrinics,  who  flourished  A.  D. 
194.  The  quotation  is  made  by  Dr.  Porter  in  his  Lectures  on 
Homiletics.  This  father  says, —  "  We  pray  with  the  head  lifted 
up,  and  the  hands  stretched  out."  In  addition  to  Tertulhan's 
testimony  that  they  prayed  without  a  monitor,  i.  e.  without  a 
book  or  any  thing  written  down,  because  they  prai/ed  from  the 
heart,  —  the  testimony  of  both  these  fathers,  that  they  per- 
formed this  service  with  their  heads  elevated,  and  their  hands 
outstretched,  like  Solomon's  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple, 
is  absolutely  fatal  to  the  idea  that  they  used  a  book.  If  they 
had  used  a  book,  both  hands  and  eyes  would  have  had  employ- 
ment altogether  incompatible  with  such  an  attitude. 

Tertullian  says  again,  in  his  book  on  prayer,  ch.  9, —  "  Yet, 
since  our  Lord,  who  foresaw  men's  necessities,  after  he  had 
delivered  the  rule  of  prayer,  said  particularly,  'Ask  and  ye 
shall  receive ; '  and  there  are  several  things  which  need  to  be 
asked  according  to  every  one's  circumstances, —  the  rightful 
and  ordinary  prayer  being  first  used  as  a  foundation,  we  may 
lawfully  add  other  desires,  and  build  other  petitions  upon  it." 

Origen's  testimony  on  this  subject  is  very  full.  This  father 
flourished  about  A.  D.  230.  In  his  eighth  book  against  Celsus, 
from  page  386,  to  page  402,  there  is  much  that  might  be 
quoted.  The  following  passages  among  others,  occur,  —  "  We 
worship  one  God  and  his  one  Son,  who  is  his  word  and  image, 
with  supphcations  and  honors,  according  to  our  ability." 
Again ;  "  but  the  Grecian  christian  in  Greek,  the  Romans  in 
Latin,  and  every  one  in  his  own  proper  language,  prays  to  God, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  259 

and  praises  him  as  he  is  able.  Lord  chancellor  King,  after 
quoting  Origen's  comment  on  the  injunction,  not  to  use  "  vain 
repetitions,^''  has  this  judicious  observation, — "  Surely  this  cau- 
tion had  been  needless,  of  stnctly  obser\'ing  the  words  that 
they  uttered,  and  this  fear  had  been  groundless,  of  expressing 
themselves  indecently,  or  sinfully,  if  they  had  a  prayer-book  to 
recur  to." 

Dr.  Porter,  in  his  Lectures  on  Homiletics,  page  293,  says, — 
"  Origen,  in  his  treatise  on  prayer,  maintains  the  necessity  of 
closing  the  eyes  to  avoid  the  interruption  of  external  objects. 
In  his  treatise  contra  celsum,  too,  he  says,  that  '  we  should 
close  the  eyes  of  the  body,  and  elevate  those  of  the  soul.'  Now, 
it  must  have  been  a  gift  next  to  inspiration  to  read  prayers 
with  the  eyes  shut." 

Let  me  close  those  citations  with  a  passage  from  Augustine, 
who  flourished  in  the  fourth  century.  He  is  enforcing  the 
necessity  of  the  people  being  taught  to  exercise  humihty  and 
forbearance  in  estimating  the  gifts  of  ministers.  He  says, — 
De  Catech.  Rudib.  cap.  ix,  tom.  iv, — "  Make  them  understand 
that  not  the  voice,  but  the  feelings  of  the  soul,  reach  the  ear 
of  God ;  for  then  they  will  not  laugh  if  they  observe  any  of 
the  bishops  and  ministers  of  the  church  are  guilty  of  barbar- 
isms and  solecisms  in  their  praying  to  God."  How,  it  may 
be  asked,  could  the  officiating  ministers  be  guilty  of  barbar- 
isms and  solecisms,  in  their  praying  to  God,  if  they  used 
precomposed  forms? 

Will  these  testimonies  be  deemed  sufficient  ?  I  have  more 
of  them  at  hand,  if  they  are  called  for ;  but  I  can  not  think 
that  more  are  necessary.  The  truth  is,  the  entire  weight  of 
testimony,  and  in  fact,  every  thing  that  can  have  weight  as 
testimony,  is  in  favor  of  free  prayer,  both  among  the  Jews 
and  in  the  early  christian  church.  Yet,  Mr.  Schuyler  coolly 
tells  us,  and  leaves  it  there,  as  though  it  were  a  settled  fact, 
that  we  have  no  record  of  extempore  prayer  in  the  church,  in 
any  part  of  Christendom  previous  to  the  reformation !    He  has 


260  THE  CHURCH, 

the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Vermont  for  this,  I  know ;  but 
with  the  bishop  of  Vermont,  who,  by  the  way,  is  no  more 
bishop  of  Vermont  than  I  am,  but  of  a  very  few  feeble  Epis- 
copal congregations  in  that  state,  it  is  just  as  unproved  an 
assertion  as  it  is  with  the  real  bishop  of  St.  John's  church  in 
the  city  of  Buffalo.  I  have  read  Dr.  Hopkins'  lecture  on 
liturgies,  in  his  book  entitled,  "  The  Primitive  Church,"  and 
find  that  it  contains  all  Mr.  Schuyler  has  said  on  this  subject, 
with  a  remarkable  similarity  in  the  manner  of  saying  it,  and 
some  things  besides,  which  I  regret  Mr.  Schuyler  did  not  say,  as 
it  would  have  afforded  me  peculiar  pleasure  to  reply  to  them. 
For  example,  I  would  have  liked  to  show  how  sorely  pushed 
for  an  argument  a  man  must  be,  when  he  finds  it  necessary  to 
quote  in  defense  of  liturgies,  Paul's  words  to  Timothy, —  2 
Tim.  i :  1 3, —  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  thou 
hast  heard  of  me,  in  faith  and  love  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus !  " 
I  w^ould  have  liked  to  solve  also,  what  seems  to  Dr.  Hopkins, 
on  our  principles,  so  incredible  a  marvel,  as,  "that  such  an 
alteration,"  as  the  introduction  of  liturgical  services  in  the  place 
of  free  prayer,  in  the  public  worship  of  God,  "could  have 
taken  place  in  the  primitive  church,  without  noise,  without 
opposition,  yea,  so  quietly,  and  so  much  in  the  dark,  that  not 
one  line  remains  to  testify  the  fact  to  after  ages."  The  wonder, 
demanding  an  explanation,  might  be  somewhat  diminished  to 
his  view,  by  letting  him  know  that  instead  of  there  being  "  not 
one  line  left  to  testify  the  fact  (of  this  change)  to  after  ages," 
a  very  distinct,  and  satisfactory,  and  credible  account  of  the 
change  is  actually  upon  record,  and  may  be  exhibited  to  him 
at  any  time  that  he  desires  to  be  enhghtened.  For  the  rest, 
how  does  he  know  that  this  change  took  place  "  without  noise,'* 
and  "  without  opposition  ?" 

A  change  in  the  manner  of  public  worship,  which  took  place 
more  than  fourteen  hundred  years  ago,  may  have  excited  oppo- 
tion  and  a  noise,  or  it  may  not.  If  we  have  historical  e\^dence 
of  the  change  itself,  we  may  well  be  content,  without  demanding 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  261 

an  account  of  all  tlie  minute  details  and  particular  circum- 
stances attending  it.  For  all  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  there 
may  have  been  noise  and  opposition  enough  to  satisfy  even 
Dr.  Hopkins,  could  he  be  sufficiently  certified  of  it,  that  the 
introduction  of  liturgies  was  an  innovation  on  all  former  usage. 
But,  how,  he  asks,  would  the  christians  of  that  age  submit  to 
such  a  change  at  all  ?  —  "  Let  us  only  imagine  what  a  clamor 
would  be  raised,  if  any  man  or  set  of  men  should  try  to  in- 
troduce liturgies  among  our  Presbyterian  or  Congregational 
brethren.  Let  any  degree  of  practicable  human  management 
be  used  to  change  their  habits  on  this  subject,  and  I  venture  to 
say,  that  if  the  attempt  succeeded  at  all,  it  would  be  but  par- 
tially, and  at  the  cost  of  an  open  and  bitter  schism."  The  Dr. 
is  right  in  this,  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt.  But  is  there 
no  difference  between  the  circumstances  of  his  Presbyterian 
and  Congregational  brethren  at  the  present  day,  and  those  of 
the  christians  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  ?  I  believe  I 
may  venture  to  ask  Dr.  Hopkins  himself,  if  he  does  not  think 
that  we  are  rather  then*  superiors  in  point  of  intelligence? 
Certainly,  he  will  own  that  among  us  there  is  no  monarchical 
power  to  make  changes  at  its  will,  resembling  the  well-grown 
hierarchy  of  the  period  at  which  we  affirm  that  the  change 
under  consideration  was  introduced.  So  far  from  its  being  a 
wonderful  thing,  that  such  a  change  should  have  been  made, 
and  the  people  should  have  submitted  to  it,  we  rather  look  upon 
it  as  most  natural,  that  when  the  christian  ministry,  according 
to  all  historical  evidence,  was  filled  with  extremely  illiterate 
men,  wholly  incompetent  to  conduct  the  services  of  religion 
themselves,  the  idea  of  providing  them  with  written  prayers 
should  have  occurred  to  the  governors  of  the  church ;  and  we 
see  nothing  more  difficult  to  understand,  in  the  supposition  that 
the  people,  as  ignorant,  to  say  the  least,  as  their  priests,  and  by 
this  time  accustomed  to  submit  to  the  domination  of  their 
bishops,  should  have  accepted  the  change  when  it  was  imposed 
upon  them.     That,  tlierefore,  which  seems  to  Dr.  Hopkins  a 


262  THE   CHURCH, 

"  wild  supposition^''  I  think  will  not  seem  so  to  others ;  and  the 
marvel  which  overwhelms  his  powers  of  conception,  I  am  per- 
suaded, will  very  generally  appear  a  most  natural  and  rational 
affair. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  Mr.  Schuyler  in  his  argument 
for  liturgies  on  the  ground  of  expediency. 

We  object  to  liturgies  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  affirm- 
ing,—  First,  that  they  are  unfavorable  to  devotion,  and  tend  to 
mere  formahty  in  rehgion. 

Second.  That  they  can  not  be  framed  so  as  to  meet  all  the 
possible  and  ever  actually  recurring  wants  of  the  soul,  and  to 
be  adapted  to  all  the  varied  and  ever  varying  circumstances  of 
the  church. 

We  object  to  them  farther  and  mainly,  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  totally  destitute  of  authority  in  the  scriptures,  being 
mere  devices  of  men,  and  corruptions  of  the  worship  which 
God  himself  has  sanctioned,  and  which  is  commended  to  us  by 
the  practice  of  our  Lord,  of  his  apostles,  and  the  first  christians. 

The  main  practical  objection  to  free  prayer,  which  is  urged 
by  our  author,  is  stated  on  page  174,  as  follows: 

"  Who  that  has  attended  public  worship  thus  conducted,  has 
not  often  gone  away,  feeling  that  his  spiritual  desires  have  been 
unsatisfied,  and  that  there  was  much  in  his  heart  which  had 
found  no  expression  in  the  prayers  of  the  minister  ?  Or,  who 
has  not  been  pained  with  listening  to  irreverent  and  unsuitable 
petitions,  or  chilled  with  the  set  phrases,  and  stifi"  and  formal 
sentences  of  the  dull  and  lifeless  petitioner,  or  shocked  by  the 
reckless  discussion  of  some  favored  topic  of  fanaticism  ? " 

I  think  it  will  not  be  considered  unfair,  if  I  refeather  this 
shaft,  and  send  it  back.  My  opinion  is,  that  it  will  fly  as  well 
in  that  direction  as  in  this,  and  stich  there  as  well  as  here. 

Who,  that  has  attended  public  worship  in  churches  where  a 
liturgical  service  was  employed,  if  of  a  devotional  frame  of 
mind,  has  not  often  gone  away  feeling  that  his  spiritual  desires 
have  been  unsatisfied,  and  that  there  was  much  in  his  heart 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  263 

that  had  found  no  expression  in  the  prayers  that  the  minister 
read  out  of  his  book  ?  Or,  who  has  not  been  pained  by  the 
hght  and  irreverent  manner  in  which  the  prayers  were  read,  as 
well  as  by  the  "  vain  repetitions,"  and  sometimes  unscriptural 
doctrine  of  the  prayers  themselves;  or  chilled  with  the  set 
phrases  and  monotonous  petitions  of  the  book,  made  still  more 
set  and  monotonous  by  the  aflfected  drawl  of  the  dull  and  life- 
less reader ;  or  shocked  by  the  exhibition  of  the  most  unmis- 
takable signs,  that  what  was  a  mere  form  in  the  letter,  was  a 
mere  form  also  in  the  spirit,  and  hardly  reverenced  even  as  a 
form  of  worship  offered  to  God  ? 

For  the  edification  of  my  readers,  and  possibly  of  Mr. 
Schuyler  himself,  I  will  here  describe  a  veritable  scene,  of  which 
I  myself  was  a  disgusted  eye-witness,  seven  years  ago,  in  Lon- 
don. Attracted  by,  I  hope,  a  pardonable  curiosity,  I  attended 
morning  service,  one  day,  at  St.  Paul's,  the  very  high  place  of 
episcopacy  in  England.  The  htany  was  chaunted  by  the  offi- 
ciating minister  of  the  day,  assisted  in  the  responses  by  three 
or  four  little  boys,  frocked  in  white,  who  stood  in  a  side  gallery 
opposite  the  reading  desk.  During  the  entire  service  the  boys 
were  making  themselves  merry,  in  a  quiet  way,  at  something 
that  amused  them  in  the  congregation.  There  were,  in  all, 
perhaps  fifty  persons  in  attendance.  In  the  course  of  the  cere- 
mony, the  minister,  who  probably  had  been  hastily  summoned 
from  his  dreams  to  engage  in  this  duty,  actually  went  through 
with  the  most  offensive  operations  of  his  neglected  toilette, 
occupying  with  this  most  devout  exercise,  chiefly,  the  time  of 
the  responses.  First,  he  pared  and  scraped  his  nails ;  then  with 
an  ear-shovel  he  removed  the  serum  from  the  cavities  of  his 
ears,  examining  the  shovel  after  each  use  of  it,  apparently  to 
see  what  was  obtained.  When  this  was  done,  the  tweezers 
were  applied  to  his  reverend  nose,  and  many  a  quick  jerk  bore 
witness  that  this  labor,  at  least,  was  not  a  form.  The  toilette 
and  the  prayers  were  concluded  together. 


264  THE  CHURCH, 

You  look  incredulous,  gentle  reader,  but  I  do  assure  you  that 
what  I  have  described,  without  exaggeration  or  adornment,  my 
own  eyes  saw.  You  may  suggest  that  I  had  no  business  to  be 
looking  about  me  in  such  a  place.  Perhaps  I  had  not,  but  I 
did,  nevertheless.      Conjiteor  mihi  peccatum. 

Alas !  alas !  for  the  unseemly  possibilities  of  our  Presbyterian 
prayers.  It  must,  at  least,  be  owned  that  we  would  not  find  it 
easy  to  beat  his  reverence  of  St.  Paul's. 

The  only  farther  comment  that  I  desire  to  make,  involves 
another  story.  When  this  most  edifying  service  was  ended,  I 
passed  out  of  the  chapel,  into  the  nave  of  the  cathedral,  where, 
after  a  little  time,  I  w^as  joined  by  that  Mr.  Huntington  who 
wrote  the  silly,  but  somewhat  celebrated  religious  romance, 
entitled  "Lady  Alice."  He  was  then,  a  high-toned  Episco- 
palian, but  has  since  yielded  to  his  tendencies,  and  joined  the 
Roman  Catholics.  "  Well,"  said  Mr.  H.  in  a  very  low  tone  of 
voice,  as  though  he  felt  himself  to  be  standing  on  holy  ground, 
"  tell  me,  Mr.  Thompson,  what  impression  has  this  service  made 
upon  your  mind  ? "  Do  you  really  wish  me,  I  replied,  to  tell 
you  exactly  what  I  think  of  it  ?  "  Oh,  certainly ;  of  course." 
Well  then,  my  dear  sir,  said  I,  to  speak  with  entire  plainness, 
and  I  beg  you  will  not  take  it  as  a  personal  affront,  I  think  it 
is  one  of  the  biggest  humbugs  in  all  London.  "  I  can  only 
say,"  rejoined  Mr.  H.  with  a  most  lugubrious  roll  of  his  eyes, 
as,  after  a  little  hesitation,  he  turned  away  from  me,  apparently 
horrified  at  my  impiety, — "I  can  only  say  that  your  opin- 
ion evinces  a  very  imperfect  development  of  the  religious 
principle  in  you  !  " 

I  will  only  add,  that  there  is  evidently  no  security  in  a 
liturgy,  against  the  evil  of  which  Mr.  Schuyler  complains.  On 
the  lips  of  a  buffoon,  or  a  fop,  or  a  fool,  even  the  Lord's  prayer 
may  be  divested  of  all  its  power  to  enhven  and  edify  the  souls 
of  men.  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  may  have  been  sometimes 
in  Presbyterian  pulpits,  mournful  and  mortifying  exhibitions, 
both  of  mental  and  moral  incapacity  to  conduct  the  devotions 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  265 

of  God's  people,  but  I  do  deny  that  in  this  respect  Episcopa- 
lians have  any  advantage  over  us.  I  affirm,  on  the  contrary, 
that  they  greatly  suffer  in  a  comparison. 


MR.   SCHUYLER'S  APPENDIX. 

I  propose  briefly  to  notice  a  variety  of  matters  which  our 
author  has  collected  from  various  sources,  and  thrown  together 
in  a  heterogeneous  mass,  at  the  end  of  his  volume.  His  first 
article  is  an  extract  from  bishop  Macoskry,  of  Michigan,  on  the 

REPUBLICAN  CHARACTER  OF  THE  AMERICAN    EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Why  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  introduce  this  topic,  I  can 
not  imagine,  unless  he  felt  a  suspicion  that  the  point  to  which 
it  relates  is  one  on  which  his  church  is  peculiarly  vulnerable.  I 
do  not  see  that  it  has  any  intimate  relation  to  the  object  of  his 
book,  or  that  it  can  seriously  affect,  either  way,  the  main  ques- 
tion in  debate  between  us.  Either,  he  had  some  special  reason 
for  being  sensitive  on  this  subject,  and  therefore  availed  himself 
of  this  not  very  suitable  occasion  for  relieving  his  mind,  or  else, 
which  perhaps  is  the  more  charitable  conclusion,  he  barely 
wanted  an  appendix,  a  tail  to  his  kite,  and  fancied  this  would 
do  to  begin  with,  as  well  as  any  thing.  Bishop  Macoskry  says, 
"  At  the  time  of  our  civil  revolution,  the  church,  as  is  well 
known,  separated  herself  entirely  from  the  jurisdiction  of  a  for- 
eign bishop,  and  declared  her  independence,"  &c.  &c.  Was  it 
at  the  time  of  our  civil  revolution,  or  after?  Did  the  Episcopal 
church  sympathize  with  the  spirit  of  that  great  national  move- 
ment, and  co-operate  with  it;  or,  when  the  movement  was 
perfected,  did  she  ungracefully  submit  to  a  necessity,  and  con- 
form herself,  for  the  sake  of  her  own  existence,  to  her  altered 
circumstances?  I  am  not  going  into  a  discussion  of  this 
13 


266  THE  CHURCH, 

subject.  If  any  of  my  readers  desire  to  see  full  justice  done  to 
it,  I  recommend  them  to  the  able  work  of  Dr.  Thomas  Smyth, 
of  Charleston,  S.  C,  on  "  Ecclesiastical  Repubhcanism."  What 
attitude  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country  occupied  "  at  the 
time  of  our  civil  revolution,"  is  very  well  understood  by  those 
who  are  at  all  conversant  with  the  history  of  that  eventful  and 
trying  period.  That,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  it  was  an 
attitude  of  decided  and  earnest  protest^  I  can  not  suppose  that 
any  man  needs  to  be  informed,  for  it  is  notorious,  that  as  a 
body,  the  Episcopalians  of  the  country  were  either  openly 
or  covertly  devoted  to  the  English  interest,  and  that  great 
numbers  of  their  clergy  resigned  their  charges  and  went 
home  in  disgust,  while  those  who  remained,  as  a  general 
thing,  both  preached  and  prayed  against  the  cause  of  the 
colonies. 

Whether  the  Episcopal  church  is  republican  or  othenvise  in 
its  present  peculiar  organization,  I  have  no  disposition  to  in- 
quire. That  the  Presbyterian  church  is  so  in  a  pre-eminent 
degree,  everybody  knows,  who  knows  any  thing  about  it.  I 
feel  very  much  as  a  distinguished  friend  of  mine.  Dr.  Joel  Par- 
ker, expressed  himself  on  another  subject,  some  few  years  ago, 
in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  It  was  at  an  annivei-sary  meeting 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Bible  Society,  on  which  occasion  Dr.  P. 
was  one  of  the  speakers.  He  had  been  preceded  by  Rev.  Dr. 
Tyng,  who,  with  all  his  christian  hberality,  can  never  suffer  an 
opportunity  to  slip  unimproved,  of  bestowing  his  laudations  on 
"  the  church."  Dr.  T.  had  been  boasting  of  his  long  and  de- 
voted attachment  to  the  cause  then  advocated  before  the  meet- 
ing, and  reiterating  his  assurances  to  the  congi-egation  that  his 
church  loved  it,  and  that  his  brethren  in  the  ministry  loved  it, 
and  especially,  that  he  knew  it  to  be  dear  to  the  heart  of  their 
newly-elected  bishop  (Dr.  Potter)  whom  he  desired  to  com- 
mend to  their  esteem  and  confidence  as  a  staunch  friend  of  the 
Bible  Society.  When  Dr.  Parker  arose,  he  said,  "We  are 
pleased  to  hear  that  the  Episcopal  clergy  are  so  favorable  to 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  267 

the  dissemination  of  the  bible,  and  especially,  that  this  is  true 
of  the  bishop  elect  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  state.  We 
shall  be  happy,  when  he  arrives,  to  give  him  the  right  hand  of 
fellowship,  and  to  own  that  he  is  almost  as  good  a  bishop  as 
any  of  us."  My  friend's  politeness  evidently  betrayed  him 
into  a  slight  extravagance  here.  "In  regard  to  us  Presby- 
terians," he  continued  "  there  is  no  occasion  for  giving  assur- 
ances of  our  devotion  to  the  work  in  which  this  society  is 
engaged.  You  all  know  where  we  stand.  A  Presbyterian, 
of  course,"  &c.  (fee. 

So  precisely,  in  regard  to  civil  liberty.  A  Presbyterian,  of 
course,  is  a  liberty-man,  and  a  liberty-supporting  man,  the 
world  over.  As  far  as  it  is  possible  for  him  to  be  so,  he  is  a 
republican,  in  whatever  age,  or  in  whatever  country  you  find 
him.  He  believes  that  the  bible  teaches  the  simplest  and 
purest  principles  of  democracy ;  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  rule 
of  all  kings  but  Christ,  and  that  it  aims  to  establish,  ere  the 
world  shall  be  burnt  up,  universal  freedom,  and  equal  rights, 
under  a  universal  sovereignty  of  the  people.  This  is  part  of  a 
Presbyterian's  religious  faith.  We  need  not  proclaim  the 
republicanism  of  our  church.  The  world  has  been  well 
instructed  on  this  point. 

Bancroft,  in  his  history  of  the  United  States,  says, —  "  We 
are  proud  of  the  free  states  that  fringe  the  Atlantic.  The  pil- 
gi-ims  of  Plymouth  were  Calvinists;  the  best  settlers  of  South 
Carolina  came  from  the  Calvinists  of  France;  William  Penn 
was  the  disciple  of  the  Huguenots;  —  the  ships  from  Hol- 
land that  first  brought  colonists  to  Manhattan  were  filled  with 
Calvinists.  He  that  will  not  honor  the  memory,  and  respect 
the  influence  of  Calvin,  knows  hut  little  of  the  origin  of 
American  lihertyT  In  connection  with  this,  may  be  cited 
the  admission  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  an  admission  which  is  the 
more  valuable  in  consequence  of  his  well  known  dishke  of  the 
men  whom  he  thus  honored,  that,  to  no  class  of  persons  in  this 
country  was  the  successful  issue  of  the  American  struggle  for 


268  THE   CHURCH, 

independence  more  directly  attributable,  than  to  the  ministers 
of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches. 

Gibbon  says, —  "  After  we  pass  the  difficulties  of  the  first 
century,  we  find  the  Episcopal  form  universally  established,  till 
it  was  interrupted  by  the  republican  spirit  of  the  Swiss  and 
German  reformers^  for  Calvin,  though  horn  in  France.,  was 
a  Swiss  reformerT 

When  the  unhappy  Charles  First  was  urged  to  give  his  assent 
to  the  act  of  Parliament  for  abolishing  episcopacy,  he  wrote  to 
lord  Jermyh,  lord  Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Ashburnham,  his  tried 
friends  and  couilsellors,  as  follows  :  "Show  me  any  prece- 
dent where  presbyterial  government  and  regal  were  together 
without  perpetual  rebellions,  which  was  the  cause  that  necessi- 
tated the  king,  my  father,  to  change  that  government  in  Scot- 
land. And  in  France,  where  they  are  upon  tolerance,  (which 
in  likelihood  should  cause  moderation,)  did  they  ever  sit  still 
so  long  as  they  had  power  to  rebel  ?  And  it  can  not  be  other- 
wise, for  the  ground  of  their  doctrine  is  anti-monarchical.  I 
will  say,  without  hyperbole,  that  there  was  not  a  wiser  man 
since  Solomon  than  he  who  said  '  No  bishop,  no  kingl  " 

King  James,  at  the  Hampton  court  conference,  held  by  him 
in  1604,  happening  to  hear  bishop  (then  Dr.)  Reynolds  use  the 
word  presbytery,  broke  out  in  the  following  language :  "  You 
are  aiming  at  a  Scot's  presbytery,  which  agrees  with  monarchy 
as  well  as  God  and  the  devil.  Then  Jack,  and  Tom,  and  Will, 
and  Dick  shall  meet,  and  at  their  pleasure  censure  me  and  my 
council,  and  all  our  proceedings." 

Similar  testimonies  and  admissions  might  be  furnished  with- 
out number. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  269 


THE  IGNATIAN  EPISTLES. 

I  said,  in  tlie  appendix  to  my  sermon,  page  fifty-five,  "  The 
ancient  authors  on  whom  prelatists  mamly  rely,  are  Clement, 
who  flourished  about  A.  D.  100,  Ignatius,  his  cotemporary,  and 
Ireneus,  who  lived  nearly  a  century  later."  I  might  have  said, 
that  Ignatius  alone,  is  the  witness  among  those  Avho  are  com- 
monly styled  the  apostolic  fathers,  on  whom  their  dependence 
is  placed.  Thus  an  Episcopalian,  author  of  Letters  on  the 
Fathers^  page  sixty-seven,  says, —  "  As  to  bishops  distinct  from 
presbyters,  we  have  no  evidence,  except  that  of  Ig-natius,  for  the 
first  two  centuries.  Clement  and  Polycarp  most  clearly  recog- 
nize but  two  orders.  Barnabas  and  Hermas  have  nothing  very 
distinct  on  the  subject.  Justin  mentions  only  two  officers  in 
the  church  in  his  time,  whom  he  calls  president  and  deacon. 
Ireneus  uses  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  indiscriminately. 
Thus  we  see,  the  weight  of  e\ddence,  during  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, is  against  three  orders, —  which  may  naturally  create 
suspicion  that  those  passages  in  Ignatius  which  refer  to  them 
are  interpolations ;  for  he  stands  alone  in  what  he  states  foe  the 
first  two  centuries;  and  not  only  alone,  but  opposed  hy  the 
strongest  authorities  during  that  period." 

This  father,  to  whom  any  number  of  epistles  have  at  differ- 
ent times  been  attributed,  is  not  now  regarded  by  any  as  being 
the  author  of  more  than  seven,  and  of  these  seven,  the  genuine- 
ness of  four,  those  to  the  Magnesians,  TraUians,  Smyrnseans, 
and  Philadelphians,  has  always  been  disputed.  It  has,  never- 
theless, been  the  habit  of  authors  to  quote  from  all  of  them, —  it 
being  understood  that  their  doubtful  authority  should  be  taken 
at  its  duly  depreciated  value.  In  our  controversy  with  Epis- 
copalians, seeing  that  the  genuineness  of  all  the  seven  epistles 
is  claimed  by  them,  we  feel  at  liberty  to  quote  even  from 
those  which  we  hold  to  be  apocryphal.  Though  the  author- 
ity is  not  respected  by  us,  it  is  by  them,  and  we  are  willing 


270  THE  CHURCH, 

to  show  them  how  weak  is  their  position,  even  where  they 
consider  it  most  impregnable.  Yevj  recently,  however,  there 
have  been  made  important  discoveries  in  regard  to  these  Igna- 
tian  epistles,  which,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  will  effectually 
exclude  from  all  credit  the  four  that  I  have  named,  and  con- 
sign them  henceforth,  by  general  consent,  to  the  catalogue 
of  admitted  forgeries.  I  refer  those  who  desire  particular  in- 
formation, to  the  number  of  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  July, 
1849,  article  sixth.  The  article  is  a  notice  of  the  "  Corpus  Igna- 
tianum,  by  Wilham  Cureton,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S."  This  work  was 
pubhshed  in  London,  in  1849,  and  judging  from  what  appears 
in  the  Review,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  does  contain  testimony 
which,  by  the  learned  world,  will  be  regarded  as  conclusive,  that 
the  four  epistles  above  named  are  spurious,  and  that  even  the 
three  which  are  admitted  to  be  genuine,  are  sadly  infected  with 
interpolations. 

The  state  of  the  Ignatian  controversy,  independently  of 
Mr.  Cureton's  discoveries,  can  not  be  more  distinctly  or  briefly 
presented,  than  in  the  following  extract  from  the  article  in 
the  Edinburgh  Review :  —  "  The  fact  of  epistles  having  been 
written  by  Ignatius  to  different  christian  communities,  a  short 
time  before  his  martyrdom,  is  sufficiently  well  attested.  They 
are  mentioned  by  respectable  authors  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries, —  by  Polycarp,  Ireneus,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and 
Origen, —  who  refer  to  or  quote  three  several  epistles,  still 
extant;  but  do  not  intimate  that  any  others  were  then  in  exist- 
ence. In  the  fourth  century,  however,  Eusebius  specifies 
seven  epistles,  attributed  to  Ignatius,  as  being  current  in  his 
time ;  but  speaks  of  them  in  guarded  terms,  as  if  he  were  not 
perfectly  satisfied  of  their  genuineness.  He  states  indeed,  that 
those  addressed  to  the  Romans  and  to  Polycarp,  had  been 
mentioned  by  ancient  writers ;  and  he  might  have  added  the 
testimony  of  Origen  with  regard  to  the  one  to  the  Ephesians. 
But  neither  he  nor  any  one  else  adduces  ancient  evidence  on 
behalf  of  those  to  the  Magnesians,  Trallians,  Philadelphians, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  271 

and  Smyniseans,  which  were  circulated  along  with  the  others  in 
the  fourth  century.  Here  then,  we  have  three  documents,  indu- 
bitably known  at  a  very  early  period,  placed  in  company  with 
four  others,  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  were  never  heard  of 
before  the  fourth  century.  The  question,  therefore,  naturally 
arises,  whether  all  seven  are  to  be  put  on  the  same  footing  ?  o\\ 
whether  the  same  process  of  amplification  was  exercised  on 
Ignatius,  to  which  St.  Clement  had  been  subjected  in  the  pre- 
vious century?  This  point  was  argued,  pro  and  con,  with 
great  ability  in  the  seventeenth  century;  but,  as  is  generally 
the  case  in  controversies,  when  the  data  are  scanty,  and  the 
opponents  equally  matched  and  equally  confident,  with  veiy 
unsatisfactory  results." 

The  question  respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  four  disputed 
epistles  may  be  regarded  as  having  been,  previous  to  the 
publication  of  Mr.  Cureton,  pretty  equally  balanced,  —  preLi- 
tists  affirming,  and  others  denying.  The  testimony  of  arcli- 
bishop  Usher  may  be  appealed  to  as  confirming  what  I  say,  of 
the  perfectly  unsettled  state  of  this  controversy.  At  the  time 
of  the  reformation  no  less  than  fifteen  epistles  were  extant  in  the 
church,  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Ignatius.  Eight  of 
these  were  so  evidently  forgeries,  that  on  the  slightest  inspec- 
tion, their  credit  was  destroyed,  even  with  those  who  would 
have  been  most  interested  in  maintaining  it.  They  had  mani- 
festly been  composed  for  the  purpose  of  fraudulently  maintain- 
ing the  influence  of  the  hierarchy,  being  filled  with  the  most 
inflated  representations  of  the  importance  and  high  authority 
of  the  episcopal  office. 

The  four  disputed  epistles  that  remain,  present  nearly  all 
the  marks  internally  of  having  been  forged  for  party  purposes, 
which  are  presented  by  the  eight  rejected  ones,  and  difier 
from  them  in  no  important  respect,  save  that  they  are  mani- 
festly of  an  earlier  date,  having  been  doubtingly  mentioned  by 
Eusebius.  But  why  is  there  no  mention  of  them  by  any  author 
who  proceeded  Eusebius?     Why  do  not  Poly  carp,  Ireneus, 


272  THE  CHURCH, 

Theopliilus,  and  Origen,  who  distinctly  mention  the  other 
three,  take  some  notice  of  these  also?  We  can  account  for 
their  utter  silence  concerning  these  epistles  in  no  other  way, 
than  by  supposing  that  they  had  no  knowledge  of  them, 
because  the  epistles  had  no  existence ;  and  knowing,  as  we  do, 
that  the  episcopal  leaven  had  begun  to  work  before  the  time  of 
Eusebius,  and  that  the  fashion  of  forging  epistles  for  party 
purposes  had  been  introduced,  we  are  furnished  with  the  ground 
of  a  supposition  in  regard  to  them,  which  reasonably  satisfies 
our  minds,  if  it  does  not  the  minds  of  our  opponents  in  this 
debate. 

This  much  may  be  safely  said,  that  the  epistles  to  the 
Magnesians,  Trallians,  Smyrnseans,  and  Philadelphians,  do  not 
stand  upon  such  ground  of  e\ddence,  as  can  justify  an  appeal 
to  them  for  the  settlement  of  debated  questions  of  christian 
faith  and  practice. 

In  regard  to  the  acknowledged  works  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
those  passages  in  them  wdiich  bear  strongly  on  controverted 
subjects,  are  always  to  be  taken  with  many  grains  of  allowance. 
Who  knows  whether  they  are  interpolations  or  not  ?  or  whether, 
at  least,  they  have  not  been  subjected  to  important  verbal  alter- 
ations ?  If  the  rage  for  accumulating  testimony  of  this  kind 
was  such  as  to  multiply  without  number  entire  works  of  im- 
posture, ascribing  them  to  authors  who  would  have  blushed  to 
see  their  names  so  employed,  who  can  doubt  that  the  genuine 
productions  of  these  authors,  as  far  as  it  could  safely  be  done, 
were  tampered  with,  and  corrupted  for  similar  ends  ? 

In  regard  to  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  the  London  Christian 
Observer,  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  respectable  Episcopalian 
periodicals  now  published,  holds  the  following  language :  "  In 
these  epistles  we  have  the  same  order  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  marshalled  with  unseasonable  exactness,  and  repeated 
with  importunate  anxiety.  There  appear,  moreover,  so  many 
symptoms  of  contrivance,  that  these  compositions  will  surely  not 
be  alledged  by  any  capable  and  candid  advocate  for  primitive 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  273 

episcopacy,  without  great  hesitation;  by  many  they  will  be 
utterly  rejected."  The  writer  asserts,  in  the  same  connection, 
that  in  all  the  particular  passages  which  bear  most  strongly  on 
the  episcopal  controversy,  "  the  language,  at  the  earliest,  is  that 
of  the  fourth  century'^ 

"  It  is  impossible,"  says  Mr.  Riddle^  "  to  attach  any  impor- 
tance to  any  separate  portions  of  these  epistles,  in  which  it  is 
highly  probable  that  spurious  clauses  have  been  artfully  mixed 
up  with  the  genuine  expressions  of  the  apostolical  fathers." 

Let  no  one  suppose  that  I  desire  to  destroy  the  credit  of 
these  ancient  writings,  through  fear  of  any  legitimate  use  that 
can  be  made  of  them  in  this  controversy.  I  still  affirm,  with 
the  Episcopal  writer  whom  I  have  already  quoted,  that  the 
weight  of  evidence  during  the  first  two  centuries,  is  against  our 
opponents,  and  in  our  favor. 

Of  the  quotations  from  Ignatius,  made  by  Dr.  Carmichael, 
with  which  our  author  has  favored  us,  two  only,  the  first  and 
the  last,  are  from  epistles  acknowledged  to  be  genuine. 

Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Sec.  2. — I  transcribe  the  im- 
portant sentence. — "  For  even  Jesus  Christ,  our  inseparable  life, 
is  sent  by  the  will  of  the  Father ;  as  the  bishops  appointed  unto 
the  utmost  bounds  of  the  earthy  are,  by  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ^ 
The  entire  value  to  Episcopalians  of  this  passage  depends  upon 
the  occurrence  of  the  word  "  bishops  "  in  it,  and  the  sheer  as- 
sumption that  that  word  stands  for  something  more  than  ordi- 
nary christian  ministers.  What  right  have  they  to  make  such 
an  assumption  ?  We  insist  that  they  have  none  whatever.  In 
the  writings  of  the  apostles,  in  the  New  Testament,  they  are 
forced  to  own  that  the  word  bishop  is  convertable  with  presby- 
ter, and  means  always  the  very  same  thing.  On  what  ground, 
then,  do  they  assume  that  in  the  writings  of  those  who  imme- 
diately succeeded  the  apostles,  it  means  something  different? 
Let  them  show,  if  they  can,  a  single  substantial  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  the  use  of  the  word  was  so  early  changed.  This 
they  can  not  do.  Substitute  in  this  passage  from  Ignatius, 
13* 


274  THE  CHURCH, 

ministers  for  bishops,  or  understand  the  latter  word  in  the 
authorized  scriptural  sense,  and  then  the  passage  stands  for 
precisely  what  it  is. 

Sec.  4.  "  Wherefore  it  will  become  you  to  run  together,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  your  bishop,  as  also  ye  do.  For  your 
famous  presbytery  (worthy  of  God,)  is  fitted  exactly  to  the 
bishop  as  the  strings  are  to  the  harp."  It  is  to  be  observed 
again,  that  the  use  of  the  word  ^^  bishop  ^^  proves  nothing. 
Neither  does  that  superiority  of  the  bishop,  indicated  by  the 
exhortation  to  "  run  together,  according  to  his  will,"  prove  any 
thing,  for  it  is  barely  coincident  with  all  those  directions  given 
to  christians  in  the  New  Testament,  which  inculcate  subordina- 
tion and  obedience  to  those  who  have  authority  in  the  church, — 
see  1  Tim.  v :  1 7, — "  Let  the  elders  (presbyters)  that  rule  well 
be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor 
in  the  word  and  doctrine."  That  is,  especially  let  double  honor, 
the  honor  of  reverence  and  subjection,  be  shown  to  those  elders 
to  whom  is  especially  committed  the  instruction  and  spiritual 
oversight  of  the  church. 

What  Ignatius  intended  by  saying  that  the  "  presbytery  is 
fitted  exactly  to  the  bishop  as  the  strings  are  to  the  harp,"  I 
am  not  able  with  certainty  to  say.  I  suppose  that  by  the  pres- 
bytery he  meant  the  college  or  board  of  elders  in  any  church, 
and  that  he  designed  to  magnify  the  office  of  the  presiding 
elder  or  pastor,  by  pointing  out  its  beautiful  adaptation,  in 
connection  with  the  entire  eldership,  to  all  the  purposes  of 
church  government.  The  well-understood  constitution  of  our 
Presbyterian  churches  may  serve  as  an  illustration.  If  any 
thing  more  can  be  fairly  made  of  it,  let  Dr.  Carmichael,  or  any 
of  his  brethren  show  what  more. 

Epistle  to  Polycarp,  Sec.  6. — "  Hearken  unto  the  bishop, 
that  God  also  may  hearken  unto  you.  My  soul  be  security  for 
them  that  submit  to  their  bishop,  with  their  presbyters  and 
deacons;  and  may  my  portion  be  together  with  theirs  in  God." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  275 

The  first  sentence  here  may  be  explained  by  what  Christ 
said  to  his  disciples,  Matt,  x :  40, — "  He  that  receiveth  you, 
receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him  that  sent 
me."  The  bishop  is  the  pastor  of  the  church,  the  minister  of 
Christ,  God's  embassador  to  men,  and  to  hearken  to  him  is 
certainly  the  way  to  obtain  the  divine  favor.  The  language 
of  Ignatius  here  is  eminently  Presbyterian.  In  each  of  our 
churches,  when  the  complement  of  ofiice-bearers  is  perfect, 
there  is  first  a  bishop  or  pastor,  who  is  also  an  elder ;  then  the 
presbyters  or  elders,  whose  duty  it  is  to  assist  the  pastor  in 
the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  church,  and  in  the  administration 
of  discipline ;  and  finally,  the  deacons,  who  serve  tables,  and 
look  after  the  poor.  The  arrangement  in  an  Episcopal  church 
is  very  different,  and  such  as  does  not  at  all  agree  with  what 
Ignatius  says.  An  Episcopal  church  has  a  bishop^  who  com- 
monly resides  at  a  distance,  rarely  visiting  it,  and  who,  when  he 
does  visit  it,  is  hardly  brought  in  any  way  into  contact  with  the 
people,  so  that  he  can  scarcely  be  said  to  bear  rule  over  them. 
The  clergy  are  ruled  by  the  bishop,  but  if  there  is  any  ruling 
in  the  churches  themselves,  over  the  people  who  compose  them, 
I  do  not  well  see  how  it  is  done  by  the  bishop.  They  ordi- 
narily know  very  little  about  him,  so  that  his  government,  in 
fact,  is  more  nominal  than  real.  Then  they  almost  never  have 
either  presbyters  or  deacons.  They  have  a  single  presbyter,  or 
a  single  deacon.  If  it  is  a  presbyter,  then  they  have  no  dea- 
con. If  it  is  a  deacon,  then  they  have  no  presbyter.  Now 
suppose  that  some  great  saint  were  to  write  an  epistle  to  my 
brother  Schuyler's  church,  in  the  city  of  Buffalo,  and  in  the 
course  of  his  earnest  exhortation  should  say, — "  My  soul  be 
security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  bishop  with  their  presby- 
ters and  deacons."  The  people  might  say, — "  We  are  quite 
wiUing  to  submit  to  the  bishop  in  all  things  that  are  right  and 
proper,  though  we  do  not  see  him  oftener  than  once  a  year,  and 
then  only  for  a  little  time  in  church,  on  Sunday;  but  as  for 
presbyters,  we  have  but  one,  and  we  have  no  deacons  at  all. 


276  THE  CHURCH, 

We  are  above  deacons,  having  a  priest  in  full  orders."  If  this 
saint's  letter  were  addressed  to  all  the  Episcopalians  in  Buffalo, 
the  comment  upon  it  might  be  much  the  same,  for  I  believe 
there  is  not  an  Episcopal  deacon  in  the  city —  I  do  not  know  of 
any.  Such  a  letter,  addressed  to  any  one,  or  to  all  of  our 
Presbyterian  churches,  would  find  a  state  of  things,  on  the 
contrary,  exactly  corresponding  to  its  terms. 

Both  of  these  quotations,  therefore,  from  undoubted  epistles 
of  Ignatius,  I  claim  as  direct  and  clear  testimony  in  our  favor, 
and  against  our  opponents,  nor  will  any  disinterested  person 
deny  that  they  are  so. 

Our  adversaries  seem  to  think  that  wherever  three  grades  of 
officers  in  the  church  are  mentioned,  it  is  proof  positive  of 
three  grades  in  the  ministry ;  and  although  they  are  forced  to 
own,  that  the  term  bishop,  in  the  New  Testament,  means 
nothing  but  presbyter,  yet,  the  very  instant  they  find  the  word 
occurring  in  the  writings  of  men,  who  flourished  even  before 
the  last  of  the  New  Testament  writers  was  dead,  they  insist 
upon  attaching  to  it,  without  the  shadow  of  a  reason,  a  meaning 
to  suit  their  own  party  views;  and  that  too,  in  spite  of  the 
clearest  evidence  shown  by  us,  that  the  fathers  used  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  convertibly,  precisely  as  the  apostles 
themselves  did. 

In  regard  to  the  other  testimonies  taken  from  the  pretended 
epistles  of  Ignatius  to  the  Magnesians,  Trallians,  Philadelphians, 
and  Smyrnaeans,  I  have  only  to  ask,  that  the  language  in 
which  they  are  expressed,  may  be  compared  with  the  language 
used  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  in  speaking  on  similar  sub- 
jects ;  and  if  any  reasonable  mind  is  not  satisfied,  either  that 
Ignatius  was  crazed,  or  that  these  epistles  are  forgeries,  or  at 
least  that  the  passages  quoted  are  interpolations,  then  I  shall  be 
altogether  disappointed.  Look,  for  example,  in  the  quotation 
from  the  epistle  to  the  Trallians, — "  Let  all  reverence  the 
deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  bishops  as  the  Father,  and 
the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  277 

apostles."  Did  the  disciple  of  the  meek  and  lovely  John,  whose 
highest  ambition  was  to  be  known  as  "  the  elder,"  and  to  be 
permitted  to  counsel  and  beseech  men  as  one  of  them^  write 
such  stuf  as  this  ?  Will  any  one  beheve  it  ?  What  would  the 
members  of  Mr.  Schuyler's  church  think  of  their  rector,  if  he 
should  exhort  them  in  such  words  as  those  which  are  here  attri- 
buted to  good  old  Ignatius  ?  Look  also  in  section  sixth,  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Magnesians, — "  I  exhort  you,  that  ye  study  to 
do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord,  your  bishops  presiding  in  the 
place  of  God;  your  presbyters,  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the 
apostles ;  and  your  deacons,  most  dear  to  me,  being  entrusted 
with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.  Not  to  dwell  upon  the 
important  fact,  that  the  writer  of  this  epistle,  whoever  he  was, 
knew  nothing  of  the  modern  theory  of  Episcopalianism,  which 
puts  the  bishops,  and  not  the  presbyters,  in  the  place  of  the 
council  of  the  apostles,  just  let  it  be  considered,  whether  the 
nonsense,  if  what  seems  rather  blasphemous  may  be  so  de- 
scribed, of  the  "  bishops  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,"  does 
seem  less  attributable  to  so  good  a  man,  as  we  all  suppose 
Ignatius  to  have  been,  than  to  "that  man  of  sin,"  who,  it  was 
said  by  Paul,  2  Thess.  ii :  3,  4,  should  be  quickly  "  revealed, 
the  son  of  perdition,  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above 
all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped ;  so  that  he  as  God, 
sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God ! " 
I  might  quote  passage  after  passage,  from  these  four  epistles, 
which  are  at  least  of  doubtful  authority,  and  which  I  fully 
believe  to  be  spurious,  that  would  serve  quite  as  strongly  as 
those  which  I  have  noticed,  to  show,  either  that  Ignatius  did 
not  write  them,  or  that  the  \  oor  old  man  was  in  no  state  of 
mind  to  write  on  any  subject, —  a  fitter  candidate  for  a  cell  in 
a  mad-house,  than  for  the  place  of  teacher  to  the  churches. 
Our  Episcopal  friends  should  consider  it  beneath  them  to  rely 
for  evidence  on  writings  of  such  a  character.  If  they  will 
do  so,  however,  it  is  a  poor  reliance,  which  can  give  them  no 
fe. 


278  THE  CHURCH, 

I  must  close  this  article  with  a  quotation  from  the  glorious 
John  Milton.     I  quote  from  Griswold's  Philadelphia  edition  of 
Milton's  prose  works,  from  the  dissertation  on  prelatical  episco- 
pacy, vol.  1,  page  38.  —  "Now  come  the  epistles  of  Ignatius 
to  show  vis,  first,  —  that  Onesimus  was  bishop  of  Ephesus ; 
next,  to  assert  the  difference  of  bishop  and  presbyters ;  wherein 
I  wonder  that  men,  teachers  of  the  Protestant  religion,  make 
no  more  difficulty  of  imposing  on  our  belief  a  supposititious 
offspring  of  some  dozen  epistles,  whereof  five  are  rejected  as 
spurious,  containing  in  them  heresies  and  trifles ;  which  can  not 
agj-ee  in  chronology  with  Ignatius,  entitling  him  archbishop  of 
Antioch  Theopolis,  which  name  of    Theopolis  that  city  had 
not  till  Justinian's  time,  long  after,. as  Cedrenus  mentions ;  which 
argues  both  the  barbarous  time,  and  the  unskillful  fraud  of  him 
that  foisted  this  epistle  on  Ignatius.     In  the  epistle  to  those  of 
Tarsus,  he  condemns  them  for  ministers  of    Satan  that  say, 
'  Christ  is  God  above  all.'     To  the  Philippians,  them  that  kept 
their  Easter  as  the  Asian  churches,  as  Polycarpus  did,  and  them 
that  fasted  upon  Saturday  or  Sunday,  except  one,  he  counts  as 
those  that  had  slain  the  Lord.     To  those  of  Antioch,  he  salutes 
the  sub-deacons,  chanters,  porters,  and  exorcists,  as  if  these  had 
been  orders  of  the  church  in  his  time ;  those  other  epistles  less 
questioned,  are  yet  so  interlarded  with  corruptions,  as  may 
justly  endue  us  with  a  wholesome  suspicion  of  the  rest.     As 
to  the  Trallians,  he  writes,  that  'a  bishop  hath  power  over 
all,  beyond  all  government  and  authority  whatsoever.'     Surely 
then,  no  pope  can  desire  more  than  Ignatius  attributes  to  every 
bishop;  but  what  will  become  then  of  the  archbishops  and 
primates,  if  every  bishop  in  Ignatius'  judgment  be  as  supreme 
as  a  pope  ?    To  the  Ephesians,  near  the  very  place  from  whence 
they  fetch  their  proof  of  episcopacy,  there  stands  a  line  that 
casts  an  ill  hue  upon  all  the  epistle, — '  Let  no  man  err,'  saith 
he,  '  unless  a  man  be  within  the  rays  or  enclosure  of  the  altar, 
he  is  deprived  of  the  bread  of  life.'     I  say  not  but  this  may 
be  stretched  to  a  figurative  construction ;  but  yet,  it  has  an  ill 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  279 

look,  especially  being  followed  beneath  with  the  mention  of  I 
know  not  what  sacrifices.  In  the  other  epistle  to  Smyrna, 
wherein  is  written  that,  '  They  should  follow  their  bishop  as 
Christ  did  his  Father,  and  the  presbytery  as  the  apostles ; '  not 
to  speak  of  the  insulse  and  ill-laid  comparison,  this  cited  place 
lies  on  the  very  brim  of  a  noted  corruption,  which,  had  they 
that  quote  this  passage,  ventured  to  let  us  read,  all  men  would 
have  readily  seen  what  grain  the  testimony  had  been  of,  where 
it  is  said,  '  That  it  is  not  lawful  without  a  bishop  to  baptize, 
nor  to  offer,  nor  to  do  sacrifice.'  What  can  our  church  make 
of  these  phrases,  but  scandalous  ?  And  but  a  little  farther,  he 
plainly  falls  to  contradict  the  spirit  of  God  in  Solomon,  judged 
by  the  words  themselves :  '  My  son,'  saith  he,  '  honor  God  and 
the  king ;  but  I  say,  honor  God,  and  the  bishop  as  high-priest, 
bearing  the  image  of  God  according  to  his  ruling,  and  of  Christ 
according  to  his  priesting;  and  after  him,  honor  the  king.' 
Excellent  Ignatius!  Can  ye  blame  the  prelates  for  making 
much  of  this  epistle  ?  Certainly,  if  this  epistle  can  serve  you 
to  set  a  bishop  above  a  presbyter,  it  may  serve  you  next  to  set 
him  above  a  king.  These,  and  other  like  places  in  abundance^ 
through  all  those  short  epistles,  must  either  be  adulterate,  or 
else  Ignatius  Avas  not  Ignatius,  nor  a  martyr,  but  most  adulte- 
rate and  cornipt  himself.  In  the  midst,  therefore,  of  so  many 
forgeries,  where  shall  we  fix,  to  dare  say,  this  is  Ignatius  ?  As 
for  his  style,  who  knows  it,  so  disfigured  and  interrupted  as  it 
is  ?  Except  they  think,  that  where  they  meet  with  any  thing 
sound  and  orthodoxal,  there  they  find  Ignatius;  and  then 
they  believe  him,  not  for  his  own  authority,  but  for  a  truth's 
sake,  which  they  derive  from  elsewhere.  To  what  end,  then, 
should  they  cite  him  as  authentic  for  episcopacy,  when  they  can 
not  know  what  is  authentic  in  him,  but  by  the  judgment  which 
they  brought  with  them,  and  not  by  any  judgment  which  they 
might  safely  learn  from  him  ?  How  can  they  bring  satisfaction 
from  such  an  author,  to  whose  very  essence,  the  reader  must 
be  fain  to  contribute  his  own  understanding  ?     Had  God  ever 


280  THE  CHURCH, 

intended  that  we  should  have  sought  any  part  of  useful  instruc- 
tion from  Ignatius,  doubtless  he  would  not  have  so  ill  pro- 
vided for  our  knowledge,  as  to  send  him  to  our  hands  in  this 
broken  and  disjointed  plight ;  and  if  he  intended  no  such  thing, 
we  do  injuriously  in  thinking  to  taste  better  the  pure  evangel- 
ical manna,  by  seasoning  our  mouths  with  the  tainted  scraps 
and  fragments  of  an  unknown  table,  and  searching  among  the 
verminous  and  polluted  rags,  dropped  overworn  from  the  toiling 
shoulders  of  time,  with  these  deformedly  to  guilt  and  interlace 
the  entire,  the  spotless,  and  undecaying  robe  of  truth,  the 
daughter,  not  of  time  but  of  heaven,  only  bred  up  here  below 
in  christian  hearts,  between  two  grave  and  holy  nurses,  the 
doctrine  and  the  discipline  of  the  gospel." 


JOHN  CALVIN'S  VIEWS  OF  EPISCOPACY. 

The  portion  of  our  author's  appendix  relating  to  this  subject, 
borrowed  from  Hobarfs  Apology^  seems  to  have  been  intended 
as  retaliatory  for  my  unkind  notice  of  the  well-authenticated 
fact,  that  the  pious  reformers  of  England  were  dissatisfied  with 
their  own  reformation,  and  would  gladly  have  gone  the  whole 
length  of  their  Presbyterian  brethren  on  the  continent.  To 
make  things  even  between  us,  on  this  score,  the  shade  of  bishop 
Hobart  is  evoked,  to  affirm  that  John  Calvin  was  equally  dis- 
satisfied with  the  reformation  on  the  continent,  and  would 
gladly  have  arrested  it  at  the  same  point  at  which  it  was 
arrested  in  England.  I  can  not  but  wonder,  that  Mr.  Schuyler 
should  not  have  sought  the  nobler  and  more  serviceable  revenge 
of  proving  that  my  representation  in  regard  to  the  English 
reformers  was  incorrect.  This  he  has  not  even  attempted  to 
do.  A  generous  friend,  indeed,  who  has  kindly  stepped  in  to 
his  assistance,  has  made  a  feeble  reply, —  see  his  book,  page 
225, —  to  the  effect  that  we  are  not  to  take  the  opinions  of  a  few 
individuals  of  that  time,  as  expressing  the  sense  of  the  EngUsh 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  981 

church.  It  seems  to  me,  that  on  a  point  of  such  grand  impor- 
tance for  Enghsh  episcopacy,  there  should  have  been  a  careful 
vindication.  I  refer  again  to  Mr.  Macaulay's  statement,  thc.t 
the  pious  and  leading  reformers  of  England  were  not  satisfied; 
and  that  the  English  church  ivas  the  fruit  of  a  comi^romise 
between  the  true  friends  of  reform  and  the  government^  as 
setting  forth  a  fact  susceptible  of  the  clearest  demonstration. 
I  say,  and  what  I  say  can  be  proved  —  I  believe  every  intelli- 
gent Episcopalian  knows  it  can  be  proved  —  that  the  reforma- 
tion in  England  did  not  stop  where  it  did,  in  consequence  of 
a  conviction  in  any  man's  mind,  that  it  had  already  restored 
the  church  to  its  true  scriptural  and  primitive  order,  but 
because,  for  political  and  state  reasons,  wholly  disconnected 
with  religion,  the  government  would  not  permit  it  to  proceed 
farther.  To  exhibit  the  full  proof  on  this  subject,  would  demand 
greater  space  than  can,  at  present,  be  afforded  to  it.  It  is  on 
hand,  however,  and  will  be  furnished  when  a  suitable  occasion 
shall  require  it.  I  shall  recur  to  the  subject  again  in  this 
volume.  At  present,  I  must  attend  to  bishop  Hobart,  and  I 
am  concerned  to  say,  spoil  Mr.  Schuyler's  revenge ;  for  what 
the  bishop  asserts  concerning  John  Calvin,  is  not  true. 

If  John  Calvin  favored  episcopacy,  and  desired  to  introduce 
it  into  the  reformed  churches  on  the  continent,  why  have  we 
not  one  word  given  to  us  in  proof,  from  his  own  voluminous 
published  writings  ?  Why  are  we  to  be  told  what  Toplady 
says,  and  what  Toplady  says  that  Strype  says,  and  what  Top- 
lady  says  that  Strype  says  that  archbishop  Abbot  says,  accord- 
ing to  something  discovered  among  archbishop  Usher's  manu- 
scripts, after  both  these  archbishops  were  dead  ?  Why,  on  so 
grave  a  subject  as  this,  are  we  to  be  served  with  the  mere  gossip 
of  discontented  churchmen,  who  would  have  given  the  world 
for  the  testimony  of  such  a  name  as  Calvin's  in  favor  of  their 
system,  instead  of  having  produced  to  us  the  veritable  words  of 
John  Calvin  himself?  I  commend  this  passage  from  bishop 
Hobart,  which  Mr.  Schuyler  endorses  by  quoting,  as  a  very  fair 


282  THE  CHURCH, 

specimen  of  that  kind  of  reasoning  for  wliich  this  bishop  was 
remarkable,  and  which  gained  for  him  the  glory  of  a  contro- 
versial martyrdom  at  the  hands  of  John  Mason.  Did  Mr.  S. 
read  it  ?  I  am  sure  he  did  not  examine  its  statements,  or  even 
he  must  have  discovered  their  utter  worthlessness. 

I  have  asked,  Why  are  we  not  favored  with  a  single  testimony 
from  Calvin's  own  writings,  on  this  point,  of  his  partiality  for 
the  Episcopal  form  of  church  order?  and  every  one  must 
admit  that  the  demand  is  reasonable.  Few  men  that  ever 
lived  have  written  and  published  so  much,  or  upon  so  great  a 
variety  of  subjects.  Indeed,  almost  every  thing  that  he  ever 
did  write,  is  in  print,  and  easily  accessible ;  and  I  affirm  that  it 
is  fair  to  say,  that  what  can  not  be  proved  from  his  published 
works,  on  a  point  like  this,  can  not  be  proved  at  all,  and  ought 
not  to  be  asserted ;  more  especially  when,  as  in  the  present 
instance,  the  current  testimony  of  his  published  works  is 
exactly  contrary  to  it.  Next  to  the  reformation  of  doctrine, 
the  great  business  of  Cahdn's  life  was  the  reformation  of  church 
order,  and  his  views  on  this  latter  subject  are  expressed  freely 
and  fully.  Shall  we  set  aside  this  free  and  full  expression  of 
his  opinions,  and,  in  order  to  determine  what  he  really  thought, 
go  fishing  with  a  long  line  of  dead  men's  recollections  in  arch- 
bishop Usher's  well,  for  scraps  and  bits  of  old  letters  ? 

I  do  not  overlook  the  pretended  quotation  from  Calvin's 
book  "  on  the  necessity  of  reforming  the  church."  No  indeed. 
I  am  not  likely  to  overlook  so  choice  a  specimen  of  Jesuitical 
craft  as  that.     I  invite  particular  attention  to  it. 

Bishop  Hobart  wrote  as  follows,  and  Mr.  S.,  never  dreaming 
that  a  bishop  could  write  nonsense,  not  to  use  a  harder  word, 
gives  it  to  us  as  he  finds  it : 

"I  can  not  avoid  calling  your  attention  to  the  follo^ving 
corroborating  evidence  that  Calvin  and  the  reformed  divines 
approved  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  church  of  England^  and 
would  have  adopted  it,  if  circumstances  had  favored  such  a 
measure.     The  diligent,  learned,  and  accurate  historian,  Strype, 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  283 

furnishes  this  evidence.  It  may  be  proper  to  premise  that  the 
following  quotations  from  this  historian  have  been  adduced 
as  decisive  testimony  of  the  preference  of  Calvin  and  other 
reformed  divines,  to  the  English  episcopacy,  by  Rev.  Augus- 
tus Toplady.  *  *  *  *  Toplady,  let  it  be  remembered, 
was  a  rigid  Calvinist^  a  warm  admirer  and  panegyrist  of  Cal- 
vin, and  his  works  rank  high  in  the  estimation  of  Calvinists. 
Strype  and  Toplady  both  adduce  the  passage  in  which  Calvin 
denounces  an  anathema  against  all  who  should  reject  a  primi- 
tive hierarchy,  as  a  proof  of  his  approbation  of  the  episcopacy 
of  the  church  of  England.  Toplady  observes,  'that  great 
reformer  (Calvin)  wished  for  the  introduction  of  protestant 
episcopacy  into  the  reformed  churches  abroad^  and  then  he 
quotes  the  following  passage  from  Strype  — '  How  Calvin  stood 
affected  in  the  said  point  of  episcopacy,  and  how  readily  and 
gladly  he  and  other  heads  of  the  reformed  churches  would 
have  received  it,  is  evident  enough  from  his  writings  and 
epistles.' " 

I  have  been  at  the  pains  to  transcribe  all  this  medley  of 
words,  to  show  the  reader  how  pompously  the  proof  is  ushered 
in.  Surely,  after  all  this  parade  of  names  and  circumstances, 
we  might  expect  something  of  real  consequence,  something 
very  clear  and  specific  to  be  adduced.  What  is  it  ?  What  is 
the  evidence  from  John  Calvin  himself,  which  proves  that  he 
ardently  desired  to  introduce  the  episcopacy  of  England  into 
the  reformed  churches  on  the  continent?  Bishop  Hobart 
proceeds,  quoting  still  from  Toplady's  quotation  of  Strype : 

" '  In  his  book  (Calvin's)  of  the  necessity  of  reforming  the 
church,  he  hath  these  words :  *  Talem  nobis  hierarchiam  exhi- 
beant,'  &c. —  Let  them  give  iis  such  an  hierarchy,  (fee.  Top- 
lady agrees  with  Strype  in  considering  the  above  passage  as 
a  proof  that  Calvin's  opinion  was  favorable  to  the  English 
episcopacy.' " 

And  it  seems  that  bishop  Hobart  agrees  with  Strype,  and 
Mr.  Schuyler  agrees  with  Strype.     What  delightful  unanimity 


284  THE  CHURCH, 

of  sentiment  is  here  exhibited !  All  agree  with  Strype,  that 
when  John  Calvin  said  — "  Talem  nobis  hierarchiam  exhibeant," 
&c.  he  meant — '•'- Let  them  give  us  such  a  hierarchy''^  —  as 
they  have  in  the  church  of  England,  and  ive  will  consider  our- 
selves the  most  favored  and  fortunate  of  men!  The  reader 
could  siij^pose  nothing  else  than  that  such,  or  such  like,  would 
of  course  be  the  onward  rendering  of  Calvin's  interrupted  sen- 
tence. What  will  he  think,  when  I  tell  him  that  Calvin,  in  that 
connection,  is  thinking  as  little  of  the  church  of  England  as  he 
is  of  a  church  in  the  moon  ?  Let  me  explain  the  manner  in 
which  Calvin  happens  to  use  the  words  referred  to,  and  show 
precisely  the  connection  in  which  they  stand.  His  book  on 
"The  Necessity  of  Reforming  the  Church,"  was  addressed  to 
the  emperor  Charles  Fifth,  and  the  imperial  diet  at  Spires,  A.  D. 
1544,  It  is  mainly  a  vindication  of  the  reformed  churches,  and 
in  this  way  an  argument  for  the  reformation  of  the  church 
generally  throughout  the  empire.  This  diet  at  Spires  had  been 
called  for  the  special  purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the 
state  of  the  church,  and  devising  means  for  its  improvement. 
Calvin,  in  the  first  place,  goes  largely  into  a  statement  of  those 
deep  and  dreadful  corruptions  in  the  church  which  had 
prompted  the  reformers  to  their  course.  He  says  in  his  open- 
ing, "  I  wish  to  show  how  just  and  necessary  the  causes  were 
which  forced  us  to  the  changes  for  which  we  are  blamed." 
Next,  he  defends  what  had  been  done,  and  shows  that  "  the 
remedies  employed  were  just  and  salutary."  Under  this  head 
he  refers  particularly,  among  other  things,  to  their  having 
adopted  the  principle  of  presbytery,  in  opposition  to  that  of 
hierarchy,  or  prelatical  episcopacy,  and  at  great  length  vindi- 
cates this  change.  "  In  the  government  of  the  church,"  he  says, 
"  we  do  not  differ  from  others  in  any  thing  for  which  we  can  not 
give  a  sufficient  reason."  He  then  proceeds  to  give  reasons 
strong  and  cogent,  fairly  scouting  at  the  assumed  divine  right 
of  the  Episcopal  order,  and  the  absurd  dogma  of  the  apostolical 
succession.     "  They  quarrel  with  us,"  he  says,  "  first,  concerning 


ITS  MmiSTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  285 

the  right  and  'power^  and  secondly,  concerning  the  form  of 
ordination.  They  quote  ancient  canons  which  give  the  super- 
intendence of  this  matter  to  the  bishops  and  clergy.  They 
alledge  a  constant  succession,  by  wliich  this  right  has  been 
handed  down  to  them,  even  from  the  apostles  themselves.  They 
deny  that  it  can  be  lawfully  transferred  elsewhere.  I  wish  they 
had  by  their  merit,  retained  a  title  to  this  boasted  possession. 
But  if  we  consider,  first,  the  order  in  which  for  several  ages 
bishops  have  been  advanced  to  this  dignity ;  next,  the  manner 
in  which  they  conduct  themselves  in  it; -and' lastly,  the  kind  of 
persons  whom  they  are  accustomed  to  ordain,  and  to  whom 
they  commit  the  government  of  the  churches,  we  shall  see 
that  this  succession,  on  which  they  pride  themselves,  was  long 
ago  interrupted."  After  alluding  to  some  methods  adopted  to 
prevent  men  from  "  forcing  an  entrance  by  stealth  into  the 
episcopal  office,  or  insinuating  themselves  by  indirect  artifices," 
he  adds  —  "These  things,  I  here  only  mention  in  passing,  be- 
cause they  afford  an  easy  means  of  judging  how  much  impor- 
tance is  due  to  this  smoke  of  succession,  with  which  our  bishops 
endeavor  to  blind  us.  They  maintain  that  Christ  left  as  a 
heritage  to  the  apostles  the  sole  right  of  appointing  over 
churches  whomsoever  they  pleased,  and  they  complain  that  we, 
in  exercising  the  ministry  without  their  authority,  have  with 
sacrilegious  temerity  invaded  their  office."  In  addition  to  the 
utter  want  of  authority  for  the  hierarchical  orders,  he  goes  on 
to  show  how  dreadfully  abandoned  and  corrupt  these  orders  in 
the  church  of  Rome  had  become ;  how  the  bishops  had  become 
nothing  more  than  secular  officers,  had  abandoned  wholly  their 
work  as  pastors,  and  had  come  to  be  mere  scramblers  after 
power,  and  place,  and  emoluments.  In  this  connection  occurs 
the  remarkable  passage  on  which  Toplady,  and  Strype,  and 
Hobart,  and  last  of  all  Mr.  Schuyler,  agree,  as  proving  that 
Calvin  approved  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  church  of  England, 
and  earnestly  desired  to  introduce  it  into  the  reformed  churches 
on  the  continent!     Calvin  says,  pursuing  his  splendid  appeal 


286  THE  CHURCH, 

to  the  emperor  and  the  diet  —  not,  "  Let  them  give  us,"  a 
singular  rendering  for  "  exhibeant "  —  "  Let  them  show,  or 
produce  to  us  such  a  hierarchy,  (intimating  that  the  challenge 
was  a  desperate  one)  in  which  the  bishops  are  distinguished, 
but  not  for  refusing  to  be  subject  to  Christ,  in  which  they  de- 
pend upon  him  as  the  only  head,  and  act  solely  with  reference 
to  him,  in  which  they  cultivate  brotherly  fellowship  with  each 
other,  bound  together  by  no  other  tie  than  his  truth;  then 
indeed  I  will  confess  that  there  is  no  anathema  too  strong  for 
those  who  do  not  regard  them  with  reverence,  and  yield  them 
the  fullest  obedience.  But  is  there  any  thing  like  this  in  that 
false  mask  of  hierarchy  on  which  they  plume  themselves  ? " — 
Now  where  is  the  allusion  to  the  episcopacy  of  the  church  of 
England;  or  what  proof  does  the  passage  afford,  that  Calvin 
desired  to  introduce  such  an  episcopacy  into  the  reformed 
churches  on  the  continent?  What  does  he  say,  except  that 
had  the  Roman  hierarchy  been  such  an  one  as  he  described,  he 
would  not  have  deemed  himself  justifiable  in  rejecting  it? 
Though  he  regarded  it  as  not  the  best  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, as  an  unfortunate  deviation  from  the  simple  order  pre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament,  yet  seeing  that  it  was  established 
in  the  church,  he  would  not  have  rebelled  against  it,  if  it  had 
not  been  corrupt ;  and  he  would  have  counted  worthy  of  the 
severest  anathema  those  who  did  rebel,  and  thus  introduce  di- 
visions and  strife  for  the  sake  of  a  mere  unessential  point  of 
outward  order.  Calvin  said  in  this  passage,  just  what  I,  or  any 
other,  the  most  strenuous  Presbyterian,  might  have  said  in  the 
same  circumstances.  We  do  not  think  of  defending  the  violence 
of  the  reformation  on  the  ground  alone  of  the  hierarchism  of 
the  Romish  church,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  abominable  cor- 
ruptions of  that  church  in  doctrine  and  morals,  for  which  indeed 
its  hierarchism  is  in  no  small  degree  responsible.  If  the  Romish 
church,  hierarchical  as  it  was,  had  been  pure  in  christian  doc- 
trine and  practice,  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  us, 
that  it  would  have  been  both  foolish  and  wicked  to  disturb  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  287 

rend  it  for  a  reform  of  its  outward  order  merely  —  and  that 
those  who  should  have  done  so,  would  have  merited  the  severest 
anathema.  Still,  we  say,  that  when,  on  other  grounds,  reform 
became  indispensably  necessary,  when  the  very  maintenance  of 
religion  itself  depended  upon  it,  it  was  then  wise  and  proper, 
and  so  Calvin  showed  by  his  acts  that  he  also  judged,  to  lay 
the  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree,  and  to  reform  away,  not  alone 
the  deadly  depravities  of  the  hierarchical  church,  but  the  hier- 
archy itself,  and  make  the  church  what  Christ  and  his  apostles 
left  it.  The  work  of  cleansing  the  augean  stables  being  begun, 
it  was  well  to  make  it  thorough. 

If  any  desire  to  see  other  evidence  that  Calvin  could  not 
have  desired  to  introduce  such  an  episcopacy  as  that  of  the 
church  of  England  into  the  reformed  churches  on  the  conti- 
nent, they  may  consult  for  themselves  the  following  references : 
In  his  "  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion,"  book  4,  ch.  iii, — ch. 
iv, — ch.  V :  sec.  1 5 ;  also  his  commentary  on  Philip  i :  I ;  I  Tim. 
v:  I7;  Tit.  i:  5;  1  Pet.  v:  1,  and  Acts  xx:  28.  The  opinions 
expressed  in  these  places  were  written  at  different  periods  of 
his  life ;  some  of  them  when  he  was  a  young  man,  and  some 
of  them  not  long  before  his  death.  I  forbear,  for  the  lack  of 
room,  from  making  these  quotations  at  large,  for  to  do  justice 
to  the  subject,  some  of  them  would  be  very  long.  Whoever 
will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  them,  will  see  more  perfectly 
the  justice  of  my  remark,  that  Calvin  could  not  have  had  the 
desire  that  is  ascribed  to  him.  But  evidence  enough  is  before 
the  reader.  If  his  own  words,  in  what  I  have  quoted  from  his 
book  on  the  necessity  of  reforming  the  church,  will  weigh  any 
thing  against  the  testimony  of  Toplady  and  Strype,  he  did  not 
believe  in  such  an  episcopacy  as  that  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land. He  had  neither  faith  in  it,  nor  respect  for  it.  Did  he 
believe  in  that  sort  of  episcopacy  which  rests  upon  the  doctrine 
of  apostolical  succession  in  an  order  of  bishops,  distinguished 
as  such,  from  presbyters  ?  Will  any  man  have  the  hardihood 
and  reckless  eflfrontry  to  say  that  he  did,  after  reading  the 


288  THE  CHURCH, 

passages  wliicli  I  have  quoted  from  him  ?  Yet  he  would  gladly 
have  introduced  it,  and  Avas  only  prevented  by  circumstances ! 
What  circumstances  prevented  him  ?  For  a  long  time,  as  all 
authorities  agree,  his  influence  was  such,  especially  in  Switzer- 
land, among  the  reformed,  that  his  will  was  law.  This  his 
enemies  are  very  anxious  to  have  undei-stood,  when  they  desire 
to  fix  upon  him  the  reproach  and  shame  of  burning  poor  crazy 
Servetus.  Why  then,  if  he  desired  to  introduce  episcopacy, 
did  he  not  introduce  it  ?  What  could  have  hindered  him,  if 
he  had  brought  all  his  indomitable  energy  and  overwhelming 
influence  to  bear  on  such  an  object  ? 

Says  bishop  Hobart,  proceeding  to  another  point, — "  Toplady 
asserts  that  '  Calvin  made  a  serious  motion  of  uniting  Protest- 
ants together ; '  and  in  proof  of  his  assertion,  quotes  again 
from  Strype, — '  They  (the  foreign  Protestants)  took  such  great 
joy  and  satisfaction  in  this  good  king  (Edward  Sixth)  and  his 
establishment  of  rehgion,  that  BulHnger  and  Calvin,  and  others, 
in  a  letter  to  him,  oflered  to  make  him  their  defender,  and  to 
have  bishops  in  their  churches,  as  there  were  in  England; 
with  a  tender  of  their  service  to  assist  and  unite  together.' " 

The  foreign  Protestants  did  indeed  take  great  joy  and  satis- 
faction in  this  good  king ;  for,  knowing  his  character,  his  earnest 
piety,  and  his  desire  for  a  thorough  work  of  reform  in  the 
church,  and  especially  knowing  the  influence  over  him  of  such 
men  as  Hooper,  Cranmer,  Ponet  and  others,  who  all  inclined 
strongly  to  Presbyterianism,  they  had  the  most  sanguine  expec- 
tations that  the  church  in  England  would  be  placed,  under  his 
direction,  upon  a  true  scriptural  foundation.  Indeed,  although 
it  can  not  be  said  that  there  was  any  real  establishment  of  reli- 
gion in  Edward  Sixth's  time,  but  rather  that  things  were  rapidly 
approaching  to  an  established  state,  yet  already  the  strong  fea- 
tures of  the  hierarchical  system  were  beginning  to  disappear. 
"In  fact,"  says  McCrie,  in  his  Life  of  Knox,  referring  for 
authority  to  Strype's  Memorials  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  2,  pp. 
144,  145, — "  In  fact  the  title  of  bishop  was  very  generally 


ITS  MmiSTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  289 

disused  in  common  speech  during  the  reign  of  Edward  Sixth, 
and  that  of  superintendent  substituted  in  its  place.  And  this 
change  of  style  was  vindicated  by  Ponet,  bishop  of  Winchester, 
in  an  answer  which  he  published  to  a  popish  writer."  An 
entire  volume  of  further  testimony  on  this  point,  from  all  the 
ecclesiastical  historians  of  this  period,  including  bishop  Burnet, 
and  even  Str?/pe  himself,  might  easily  be  furnished  if  it  were 
necessary. 

"  Bullinger  and  Calvin,  and  others,"  in  such  a  state  of  things, 
may  have  wi-itten  such  a  letter  as  is  ascribed  to  them ;  but 
does  it  prove  that  they  were  hierarchists  in  principle,  or  that 
they  would  ever  have  consented  to  receive  such  bishops  as 
were  imposed  upon  the  English  church  in  the  reigns  immedi- 
ately  succeeding   the   unhappy   death,    for   England,   of    its 
beloved   Edward?      Like   all   Presbyterians,  then  and  since, 
"  Bullinger  and  Calvin,  and  others  "  were  anxious  for  a  consoh- 
dation  of  the  strength  of  Protestantism.     They  were  anxious 
to  see  all  true  christians  united  in  a  loving  brotherhood ;  and 
being  willing  for  the  sake  of  this,  to  make  compromises  and 
concessions  in  things  unessential,  and  thinking  that  they  saw  in 
the  happy  auspices  of  the  reign  of  Edward,  the  way  becoming 
plain  for  consummating  so  cherished  and  dear  an  object,  they 
may  have  written  the  letter  referred  to. 

What  then  ?  Were  they  prelatists  ?  Would  they  have  con- 
sented to  receive  the  system  of  prelacy  into  their  churches  ? 
If  bishop  Hobart  did  not  know  the  contrary,  I  am  greatly 
mistaken.  If  Mr.  Schuyler  does  not  know  the  contrary,  I 
advise  him  to  study  the  history  of  this  subject,  just  a  little, 
before  he  publishes  another  book. 

Calvin  did  not  object  strongly  to  that  kind  of  episcopacy 
which,  in  Edward  Sixth's  time,  was  on  the  eve  of  being  estab- 
lished in  England,  which  exists  now  in  the  Lutheran  churches 
of  Europe,  and  of  which  w^e  have  a  sample  in  the  Methodist 
church  in  this  country.     Although  he  certainly  preferred,  for 

the  churches  with  which  he  was  immediately  connected,  to 
14 


290  THE  CHURCH, 

liave  no  form  of  episcopacy  -whatever,  except  the  simple  form 
presented  in  the  New  Testament,  that  of  pastors  having  the 
oversight  of  single  congregations,  yet  he  did,  in  certain  cases, 
when  there  were  peculiar  reasons  for  it,  recommend  that  men 
should  be  appointed  by  their  brethren  to  a  genei-al  and  perma- 
nent superintendence  of  affairs.  I  have  now  before  me,  a  letter 
written  by  him,  December  9,  1544,  to  the  king  of  Poland,  in 
which  he  proposes  something  of  the  kind  to  be  adopted  in  that 
country.  But  let  the  place  be  shown,  in  any  of  his  writings, 
where  he  recommended  or  even  spoke  approvingly  of  such  an 
episcopacy  as  that  which  now  exists  in  England.  It  can  not 
be  done.  This  great  man  and  true  reformer  had  a  supreme 
loathing  for  such  episcopacy.  He  knew  well,  how,  and  where, 
and  when,  it  originated,  for  what  ends  it  had  been  maintained, 
and  what  had  been  its  fruits,  and  he  detested  it  as  heartily  as 
I  do.  John  Calvin  an  advocate  of  the  apostolical-succession 
episcopacy,  and  mourning  because  his  beloved  Genevan  churches 
could  not  enjoy  the  blessings  of  it !     It  is  too  ridiculous. 

Bishop  Hobart  says  again, —  "  Toplady  adduces  from  Strype 
*  another  very  remarkable  proof,  both  of  Calvin's  regard  for 
episcopacy  and  of  the  manner  in  which  a  seeming  difterence 
arose  between  the  plan  of  ecclesiastical  government  adopted 
by  that  reformer,  and  the  plan  of  episcopal  government  adopted 
by  the  church  of  England.'  Toplady  quotes  '  a  curious  paper 
in  archbishop  Abbot's  own  hand-writing,  found  among  arch- 
bishop Usher's  manuscripts,  and  published  by  Strype,'  and  then 
subjoins  — '  so  wrote  that  most  respectable  prelate,  archbishop 
Abbot,  whose  evidence  may  be  thus  summed  up  :  Calvin's 
last  letter  concerning  episcopacy,  sent  to  the  ruling  clergy  of 
England  in  the  reign  of  Edward  Sixth,  was  craftily  intercepted 
by  Bonner  and  Gardiner,  w^ho  (to  crush  Calvin's  scheme  for 
episcopizing  the  foreign  protestant  churches,^  forged  a  surly, 
snappish  answer  to  Calvin,  in  the  names  of  the  divines  to  whom 
it  was  addressed,  but  whose  hands  it  had  never  reached.  Cal- 
vin being  disgusted  at  the  rudeness  with  which  he  supposed 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  291 

his  overture  had  been  received,  dropt  all  thoughts  of  making 
any  further  advances  on  the  subject.'  And  thus,  had  not  two 
Popish  extinguishers  put  out  the  design,  Calvin  had  admitted 
the  discipline  of  the  church  of  England^  with  as  much  zeal 
and  heartiness,  as  the  church  of  England  actually  adopted 
Calvin's  doctrine." 

The  Arminianism  of  bishop  Hobart  is  considerably  shocked 
by  Toplady's  concluding  remark  in  this  passage,  that  "the 
church  of  England  adopted  Calvin's  doctrine,"  and  he  strongly 
denies  it;  but  he  is  quite  delighted  with  what  goes  before, 
when,  in  fact,  that  concluding  remark  is  the  only  truth  in  the 
entire  extract.  In  the  first  place,  Calvin  wrote  no  letter  to  the 
ruling  clergy  of  England  in  Edward  Sixth's  time,  concerning 
episcopacy,  if  by  episcopacy  is  understood  that  peculiar  system 
of  church  government  to  which  Toplady  and  Hobart  were  so 
much  attached.  I  have  shown  already  that  Cah-in  never  could 
have  desired  to  have  any  fellowship  with  such  a  system.  It 
was  altogether  a  different  kind  of  episcopacy,  if  any  at  all,  that 
the  ruhng  clergy  of  England,  in  Edward  Sixth's  time,  were 
proposing  for  themselves.  A  mere  system  of  superintendency, 
involving  no  essential  contrariety  to  our  own  Presbyterianism. 
In  the  second  place,  the  motive  ascribed  to  Bonner  and  Gardi- 
ner, for  their  crafty  interception  of  Calvin's  letter  and  forged 
reply  to  it,  is  evidently  not  the  real  one.  Instead  of  aiming 
"  to  crush  Calvin^  s  scheme  for  episcopizing  the  foreign  protes- 
tant  churches^,''  it  is  much  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
what  they  feared,  and  wished  to  thwart,  was  a  scheme  of  the 
leading  clergy  of  England  for  presbyterianizing  the  churches 
at  home.  It  is  easy  enough  to  understand  why  Bonner  and 
Gardiner  should  be  anxious  to  arrest  the  reformatory  move- 
ments in  England,  but  very  difiicult  to  understand  why  they 
should  be  so  eager  to  prevent  the  reformed  churches  on  the 
continent  from  retrograding.  Bonner  and  Gardiner  were  strain- 
ing every  nerve,  and  not  leaving  any  artifices  unemployed,  to 
hold  things  in  the  English  church  where  they  were,  at  least, 


292  THE  CHURCH, 

or,  if  possible,  to  urge  tliem  back  farther  from  Protestantism. 
It  is  easy  enough,  therefore,  to  see  how  they  would  naturally 
feel  a  lively  jealousy  of  the  intimacy  that  was  every  day  increas- 
ing between  the  ruHng  clergy  of  England  and  such  men  as 
Calvin,  and  why  they  should  wish  to  break  it  off.  And  now, 
to  confirm  the  view  of  this  matter  which  I  have  expressed,  let 
me  repeat  former  testimonies,  and  add  others  in  regard  to  the 
real  state  of  sentiment  and  feeling  among  the  English  re- 
formers, in  the  times  of  which  we  are  speaking.  We  shall 
then  be  better  able  to  judge,  whether  they  were  coUeaguing 
with  Calvin  to  episcopize  the  continent,  or  he  with  them  to 
WTiepiscopize  England. 

These  testimonies  have  been  so  well  collated  by  M'Crie,  in 
his  life  of  John  Knox,  that  I  shall  make  no  apology  for  appro- 
priating the  entire  note  in  which  he  presents  them.  It  may  be 
found  at  page  407,  and  onward,  of  the  Philadelphia  edition, 
and  is  as  follows : 

SENTIMENTS  OF  ENGLISH  REFORMERS, 

RESPECTING  THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

"  I  shall  endeavor  to  compress  the  body  of  evidence  which 
can  be  produced  for  the  conformity  between  the  private  senti- 
ments of  the  English  reformers  respecting  worship  and  church 
government,  and  those  of  Knox,  along  with  the  reformers  of 
Switzerland  and  Geneva.  Hooper,  in  a  letter  dated  Feb.  8, 
1550,  informs  Bullinger  that  'the  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
the  bishops  of  Rochester,  Ely,  St.  David's,  Lincoln,  and  Bath, 
were  sincerely  bent  on  advancing  the  purity  of  doctrine, 
agreeing  in  all  things  with  the  Helvetic  churches.' — Burnet, 
iii,  201.  Parkhurst,  bishop  of  Norwich,  in  a  letter  to  Gualter, 
Feb.  4,  1573,  fervently  exclaims,  '  0 !  would  to  God,  would  to 
God,  once  at  last,  all  the  English  people  would  in  good  earnest 
propound  to  themselves  to  follow  the  Church  of  Zurich  as  the 
most  absolute  pattern.' — Strype's  Annals,  ii,  286,  342. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  293 

"  Cranmer  expressed  his  opinion  formally  in  writing,  that 
'  the  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time  one,  and  were  no 
two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's 
religion.'  'The  bishop  of  St.  Da^dd's,  my  lord  elect  of 
Westminster,  Dr.  Cox,  Dr.  Redman,  say  that  at  the  beginning 
they  were  all  one.' — Collier,  ii,  Records,  No.  49 ;  Bm-net,  i, 
Append,  pp.  223-225.  Thirteen  bishops,  with  a  great  num- 
ber of  other  ecclesiastics,  subscribed  this  proposition,  '  that  in 
the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees 
or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and 
of  priests  or  bishops.' — Burnet,  ut  supra,  p.  324.  Cranmer 
says,  '  In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  a  bishop  or 
a  priest,  needeth  not  consecration,  by  the  scripture,  for  election 
or  appointment  thereto  is  sufficient.'  And  of  the  same  judg- 
ment was  the  bishop  of  St.  Da^dd's. — Ibid.  228,  230.  Lati- 
mer and  Hooper  maintained  the  identity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  by  divine  institution. — Voetii.  Polit.  Eccles.  tom 
ii,  p.  387.  This  w^as  also  the  opinion  of  Pilkington,  bishop  of 
Durham. — Treatise  on  the  burning  of  St.  Paul's,  apud  Cald. 
Altare  Damascenum,  p.  204.  Bishop  Jewel  assents  to  it  in 
his  Answer  to  Harding,  page  121.  And  on  the  accession  of 
Elizabeth,  he  expressed  his  hope,  that  'the  bishops  would 
become  pastors,  laborers,  and  watchmen,  and  that  the  great 
riches  of  bishoprics  would  be  diminished  and  reduced  to 
mediocrity,  that,  being  delivered  from  regal  and  courtly  pomp, 
they  might  take  care  of  the  flock  of  Christ.' — Burnet,  iii,  288. 
In  the  same  year,  Dr.  Aylmer  addressed  the  right  reverend 
bench  in  these  terms :  '  Come  ofl",  you  bishops,  away  with  your 
superfluities,  yield  up  your  thousands,  be  content  with  hun- 
dreds, as  they  be  in  other  reformed  churches,  where  there  be 
as  great  learned  men  as  you  are.  Let  your  portion  be  priest- 
like and  not  princelike.  Let  the  queen  have  the  rest  of  your 
temporalities  and  other  lands  to  maintain  these  warres  which 
you  procured,  and  your  mistresse  left  her;  and  with  the  reste 
build  and  found  scholes  thorow  out  the  realme :  that  every 


294  THE  CHURCH, 

parishe  cliurcli  may  liave  his  preacher,  every  city  his  superin- 
tendent, to  live  honestly  and  not  pompously ;  which  will  never 
be  onles  your  landes  be  dispersed  and  bestowed  upon  many, 
which  now  feedeth  and  fatteth  but  one.  I  would  our  country- 
man Wicliefe's  boke  which  he  wrote,  De  Ecclesia,  were  in 
print,  and  there  should  you  see  that  your  wrinches  and  cavil- 
lations  be  nothing  worthie.  It  was  my  chaunce  to  happen  of 
it  in  ones  hand  that  brought  it  out  of  Bohemia.' — An  Harbo- 
rowe  for  Faithful  and  Trew  Subjects,  sig.  0,  4.  Cranmer 
expressed  himself  in  a  similar  strain  respecting  the  '  glorious 
titles,  styles,  and  pomps,'  which  were  come  into  the  church 
through  the  working  of  the  spirit  of  Diotrephes,  and  pro- 
fessed his  readiness  to  lay  them  aside.  Strype's  Cranmer, 
Append,  p.  20. — Burnet,  iii,  105. — Append,  p.  88.  In  fact, 
the  title  of  bishop  was  very  generally  disused  in  common 
speech  during  the  reign  of  Edward  Sixth,  and  that  of  superin- 
tendent substituted  in  its  place.  And  this  change  of  style  was 
vindicated  by  Ponet,  bishop  of  Winchester,  in  an  answer  which 
he  published  to  a  Popish  writer. —  Strype's  Memorials  of  the 
Reformation,  ii,  444,  445. 

"  It  was  proposed  by  Cranmer  to  erect  courts  similar  to  the 
kirk-sessions  and  provincial  synods  afterward  introduced  into 
the  Scottish  church.  —  Burnet,  iii,  214.  —  Reformatio  Leg. 
Eccles.  cap.  8,  10.  He  ardently  wished  the  suppression  of 
prebendaries,  '  an  estate,'  he  said,  '  which  St.  Paule,  reckoning 
up  the  degrees  and  estates  allowed  in  his  time,  could  not  find 
in  the  Church  of  Christ.' — Burnet,  iii.  Append,  pp.  157,  158. 
All  the  Protestant  bishops  and  divines  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
Sixth  were  anxious  for  the  introduction  of  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline. Dr.  Cox  (Oct.  5,  1552)  complains  bitterly  of  the 
opposition  of  the  courtiers  to  this  measure,  and  says,  that,  if 
it  was  not  adopted,  '  the  kingdom  of  God  would  be  taken 
away  from  them.' — Latimer's  Sermons,  fol,  cix,  b.  Lond  1570. 
Strype's  Memor.  of  the  Reformation,  ii,  366. — Repository  of 
Orig.  p.  150. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  295 

"  Cranmer  and  his  colleagues  were  far  from  being  satisfied 
with  the  purity  of  the  last  common  prayer  book  of  Edward; 
and  the  j^rimate  had  drawn  up  one  which  is  said  to  have  been 
'  an  hundred  times  more  perfect.' — Troubles  at  Franckfort,  p. 
50.  He  and  Ridley  intended  to  procure  an  act  for  abolishing 
the  sacerdotal  habits ;  '  for  they  only  defended  their  lawfulness, 
but  not  their  fitness.' — Burnet's  Letters  respecting  Switzerland, 
&c.,  p.  52. — Rotterdam,  1686.  When  Grindal  was  appointed 
to  the  bishopric  of  London,  he  '  remained  under  some  scruples 
of  conscience  about  some  things,  especially  the  habits  and 
certain  ceremonies  required  to  be  used  of  such  as  were  bishops. 
For  the  reformed  in  these  times,'  says  Strype,  'generally 
went  upon  the  ground,  that,  in  order  to  the  complete  freeing 
of  the  church  of  Christ  from  the  errors  and  corruptions  of 
Rome,  every  usage  and  custom  practised  by  that  apostate  and 
idolatrous  church  should  be  abolished, —  and  ihat  the  ser\dce 
of  God  should  be  most  simple,  stript  of  all  that  show,  pomp, 
and  appearance,  that  had  been  customarily  used  before,  es- 
teeming all  that  to  be  no  better  than  superstitious  and  anti- 
christian' — Life  of  Grindal,  p.  28.  Horn  and  others  had  the 
same  views  and  scruples.  '  By  the  letters,'  says  bishop  Burnet, 
'  of  which  I  read  the  originals,  [in  the  archives  of  Zurich,]  it 
appears,  that  the  bishops  preserved  the  habits  rather  in  com- 
pliance with  the  queen's  inclinations,  than  out  of  any  liking 
they  had  to  them ;  so  far  were  they  from  liking,  that  they 
plainly  expressed  their  dislike  of  them.' — Burnet's  Letters,  ut 
supra,  p.  51.  Before  they  accepted  the  ofiice,  they  endeavored 
to  obtain  the  abrogation  of  the  ceremonies ;  and  when  the  act 
enjoining  them  passed,  they  were  induced  to  comply  chiefly 
by  their  fears  that  Papists  or  Lutherans  would  be  put  into 
their  places. — Strype's  Annals,  i,  IVS. — Burnet,  ii,  376,  and 
his  Sermon  on  Psalm  cxlv.  15,  preached  before  the  House  of 
Commons,  Jan.  1688.  Cox  writes  to  Bullinger,  5th  May, 
1551,  'I  think  all  things  in  the  church  ought  to  be  pure  and 
simple,  removed  at  the  greatest  distance  from  the  pomps  and 


296  THE  CHURCH, 

elements  of  the  world.  But  in  this  our  church  what  can  I  do 
in  so  low  a  station  ? ' — Strype's  Memor.  of  the  Reform,  ii,  305. 
Burnet,  iii,  202.  Jewel,  in  a  letter  to  Martyr,  Nov.  5,  1559, 
calls  the  clerical  habits  '  a  stage-dress,'  (vestis  scenica,)  to 
which  those  alone  were  attached,  who  'had  nothing  else  to 
recommend  them  to  the  people,  but  a  comical  dress,'' — '  stipites 
sine  ingenio,  sine  doctrina,  sine  moribus,  veste  saltem  comica 
volebant  populo  commendari.'  He  engages  that  no  exertions 
of  his  should  be  wanting  to  banish  utterly  these  ridiculous 
trifles,  'ludicris  ineptiis,'  and  relics  of  the  Amorites,  as  his 
correspondent  (he  says)  had  well  designed  them.  And,  at  a 
period  still  later,  (Feb.  8,  1566,)  he  writes  to  Bullinger,  that 
'  he  wished  that  the  very  slightest  footsteps  of  popery  might 
be  removed  out  of  the  church  and  minds  of  men;  but  the 
queen  would  at  that  time  suffer  no  change  in  religion.' — 
Burnet,  iii.  Append,  p.  291,  ii  Api:>end.  p.  351,  Strype's 
Annals,  i,  174.  Grindal  and  Horn  wrote  to  Zurich,  that  they 
did  not  approve  of,  but  merely  suffered,  kneeling  in  the 
eucharist,  and  signing  with  the  cross  in  baptism,  with  some 
other  ceremonies,  hoping  that  they  would  speedily  obtain  their 
abrogation. —  Burnet,  ii,  310,  314.  As  to  Parkhurst,  bishop 
of  Norwich,  Pilking-ton  of  Durham,  and  Sands  of  Worcester, 
the  non-conformists  bear  testimony,  that  these  prelates  dis- 
covered the  gi'eatest  zeal  in  endeavonng  to  procure  their 
abrogation.  —  Ibid,  iii,  316.  The  most  respectable  of  the 
clergy  in  the  lower  house  were  of  the  same  sentiments  with 
the  bishops  on  this  subject.  In  the  year  1562,  the  abrogation 
of  the  most  offensive  ceremonies  was,  after  long  reasoning,  put 
to  the  vote  in  the  convocation,  and  carried  by  a  majority  of 
those  present;  but,  when  the  proxies  were  included,  there  was 
found  a  majority  of  one  for  retaining  them.  The  arguments 
used  by  archbishop  Parker's  chaplains  to  prevail  upon  the 
house  to  agree  to  this,  derived  their  chief  force  from  their 
being  understood  to  be  the  sentiments  of  the  queen. —  Burnet, 
ii,  Append,  pp.  319,  320.     Strype's  Annals,  i,  298-300. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  297 

From  these  facts  (and  a  collection  much  more  ample  could 
easily  be  made)  the  reader  will  see  who  were  the  first  puritans, 
and  how  very  different  the  sentiments  of  the  English  reformers 
were  from  those  of  their  successors.  Those  good  men  who 
had  the  direction  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
Sixth,  thought  it  most  prudent  to  proceed  gradually  and  slowly, 
in  removing  the  abuses,  and  correcting  the  evils,  which  had 
overspread  the  church ;  and  to  indulge  the  people  for  a  season 
with  those  external  forms  to  which  they  had  been  habituated, 
that  they  might  draw  them  more  easily  from  their  superstitious 
notions  and  practices,  and  in  due  time  perfect  the  reformation 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all.  The  plan  was  plausible;  but  its 
issue  was  very  different  from  what  was  intended  by  those  who 
proposed  it.  Nor  was  this  unforeseen  by  persons  who  wished 
well  to  the  church  of  England.  After  the  bishops  had 
resolved  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  establishment  which  they 
obtained,  and  felt  themselves  disturbed  by  the  complaints  of 
the  Puritans,  (as  they  were  afterward  called,)  they  endeavored 
to  engage  the  foreign  divines  on  their  side ;  and  having,  by 
partial  representations,  and  through  the  respect  entertained  for 
the  government  of  England,  obtained  letters  from  them  some- 
what favorable  to  their  views,  they  employed  these  to  bear 
down  such  as  pleaded  for  a  more  pure  reformation.  Whitgift 
made  great  use  of  this  weapon  in  his  controversy  with  Cart- 
wright.  Bishop  Parkhurst  wrote  to  Gualter,  a  celebrated 
Swiss  divine,  cautioning  him  on  this  head,  adding,  that  he  had 
refused  to  communicate  some  of  Gualter's  letters  to  Whitgift; 
because,  '  if  any  thing  made  for  the  ceremonies,  he  presently 
clapped  it  into  his  book  and  printed  it.' —  Strype's  Annals,  ii, 
286,  287.  But  these  divines  had  formerly  delivered  their 
unbiased  judgment,  disapproving  of  such  temporizing  mea- 
sures. Cranmer  having  signified  to  the  Genevese  reformer, 
that  he  '  could  do  nothing  more  profitable  to  the  church,  than 
to  write  often  to  the  king,'  Calvin  wrote  a  letter  to  the  arch- 
bishop in  1551,  in  which  he  lamented  the  procrastination  usec\ 
14* 


298  THE  CHURCH, 

and  expressed  his  fears,  that  '  a  long  winter  would  succeed  to 
so  many  harvests  spent  in  deliberation.' — Epist.  p.  62;  Oper. 
torn,  ix,  Strype's  Cranmer,  p.  413.  Peter  Martyr,  in  June, 
1550,  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  'the  innumerable  corrup- 
tions, infinite  abuses,  and  immense  superstition,  could  be 
reformed  only  by  a  simple  recurrence  to  the  pure  fountain, 
and  unadulterated  original  principles.'  And  the  prudential 
advice,  that  as  few  changes  as  possible  should  be  made,  he 
called  'a  device  of  Satan,  to  render  the  regress  to  Popery 
more  easy.' —  Burnet,  iii.  Append,  p.  200.  Gualter,  in  a  letter 
dated  Jan.  16,  1559,  says,  that  such  advices,  though  'according 
to  a  carnal  judgment  full  of  modesty,  and  apparently  conducive 
to  the  maintenance  of  concord,'  were  to  be  ascribed  to  '  the 
public  enemy  of  man's  salvation ; '  and  he  prophetically  warns 
those  who  suffered  abuses  to  remain  and  strengthen  themselves 
in  England,  that  '  afterward  they  would  scarcely  be  able  to 
eradicate  them  by  all  their  efforts  and  struggles.'  —  Ibid,  iii, 
273.  Append,  p.  265. 

"  Fuller  says,  that  the  English  Reformers  '  permitted  igno- 
rant people  to  retain  some  fond  customs,  that  they  might 
remove  the  most  dangerous  and  destructive  superstitions;  as 
mothers,  to  get  children  to  part  with  knives,  are  content  to  let 
them  play  with  rattles.^  Very  good  ;  but  if  children  are 
suffered  to  play  too  long  with  rattles,  they  are  in  great  danger 
of  not  parting  with  them  all  their  days." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  299 

APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Introducing  his  author,  Chapin,  from  whom  he  quotes  on 
this  subject,  Mr.  Schuyler  says,  page  209, — "We  give  the 
reader  a  catalogue  of  the  names  of  the  bishops,  in  the  line  of 
the  apostolical  succession  in  the  church  of  England,  through 
which  our  episcopacy  is  derived.  The  line  of  succession  as  here 
given,  is  traced  through  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  Au- 
gustine, who  was  consecrated  by  Vigellius,  the  twenty-fourth 
archbishop  of  Aries,  in  France,  and  -^Etherius,  the  thirty-first 
bishop  of  Lyons,  —  whose  commissions  are  traced  in  a  direct 
line,  through  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  to  St.  John.  That 
this  catalogue  is  perfectly  correct  toe  have  not  the  least  douhtP 

As  a  matter  of  some  interest,  I  would  like  to  ask  our  author 
why  he  has  not  given  us  the  pure  Anglican  line,  without  pud- 
dling at  all  through  the  feculent  and  unwholesome  bogs  of 
Rome  ?  Why  does  he  not  stand  to  the  popular  modern  notion 
of  an  independent  and  separate  Anglican  church,  planted  on 
the  soil  by  an  apostle,  by  Paul,  or  James  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
or  Peter,  or  Simon  Zelotes?  Possibly,  he  has  some  little 
doubt  of  the  practicability  of  tracing  such  a  line  with  exact- 
ness and  certainty.  He  has  none,  however,  in  regard  to  the 
one  which  he  has  selected.  "  That  this  catalogue  is  perfectly 
correct "  he  has  "  not  the  least  doubt." 

Does  he  mean  that  he  has  an  undoubting  knowledge,  or  an 
undoubting  faith  of  the  perfect  correctness  of  this  catalogue  ? 
His  assurance,  I  need  hardly  say,  must  be  the  assurance  of 
faith;  for  knowledge  he  will  not  pretend  that  it  is  possible  for 
him  to  have.  Take  almost  any  name  that  occurs  in  this  list, 
previous,  we  will  say,  to  the  time  of  William  the  Conqueror,  in 
the  eleventh  century,  and  how  will  he  proceed  to  verify  the 
necessary  facts  to  show  that  that  name  belonged  to  a  man,  who 
was  a  bona  fide  bishop,  duly  consecrated  to  the  office,  by  a 


300  THE  CHURCH, 

bishop,  or  by  bishops,  that  had  been  duly  consecrated  before 
him  ?  Mr.  Schuyler  may  have  no  doubt  of  the  perfect  regu- 
larity of  this  succession,  but  /  am  an  unbeliever ;  and  now  the 
question  is,  how  am  /  to  be  convinced  ?  He  may  show  me 
plausible  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  succession  may  have 
been  regular  and  uninterrupted ;  he  may  establish  a  tolerable 
presumption  in  its  favor ;  but  this  will  not  relieve  my  difficulty, 
because  I  can  show  better  reasons  for  supposing  that  there  have 
been  many  breaks  in  the  line  of  that  succession,  and  that  there 
is,  at  least,  ground  for  a  forcible  presumption  that  it  is  utterly 
unworthy  of  any  credit  whatever.  Now,  it  devolves  upon  our 
Episcopal  friends  to  establish  their  pretended  succession  by  well 
attested  records,  and  by  clear  documentary  evidence.  We  want 
such  testimony  for  it,  as  would  be  demanded  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice, to  prove  the  parentage  of  an  individual,  claiming  to  inherit 
property  by  virtue  of  his  being  the  lineal  descendant  of  some 
person  who  died  a  hundred  years  ago.  Do  they  say,  "  that  is 
absurd,  such  testimony  is  entirely  out  of  the  question  in  a  case 
like  thisP^  We  reply,  that  to  pretend  to  furnish  such  testi- 
mony may  be  absurd,  but  it  is  not  absurd  in  us  to  ask  for  it. 
It  is  the  very  thing  that  we  ought  to  have ;  and  nothing  less 
than  this  ought  to  be  thought  of,  by  them  or  by  us.  They  do 
not  come  claiming  to  inherit  a  farm,  or  a  thousand  farms, 
but  the  entire  grace  of  God,  a  complete  monopoly  of  powers 
and  privileges,  under  the  original  charter  which  Jesus  Christ 
gave  to  his  apostles,  and  which  was  bequeathed  by  them  to 
their  successors,  on  the  ground  that  they,  and  they  alone,  are 
the  apostles'  lineal  descendants,  to  whom,  in  this  case,  the  inher- 
itance belongs.  Shall  we  not  ask  for  clear,  unequivocal,  and 
positive  testimony  ?  Are  we  not  justified  in  demanding  full 
proof,  before  we  consent  to  be  ousted  from  all  that  we  have 
heretofore  deemed  our  rights?  They  say  it  is  absurd,  do 
they  ?  that  such  testimony  as  we  call  for,  is  entirely  out  of  the 
question  in  a  case  like  this  ?  Very  well ;  if  such  testimony  can 
not  be  produced,  then  the  long  and  the  short  of  it  is,  that  they 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  301 

can  not  make  out  their  case.  Talk  to  us  of  strong  presump' 
tions!  Of  proof  that  puts  it  ^^  next  to  impossible  ^^  that  they 
should  be  mistaken!  Why  such  proof  would  not  weigh  a 
feather,  if  the  suit  were  brought  for  a  doubloon,  in  any  respect- 
able court  in  Christendom.  It  looks  brave  on  paper  to  make 
out  a  long  list  of  names,  with  the  name  of  St.  John  the  apostle 
at  the  top,  and  of  bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  at  the  bot- 
tom, and  to  call  it  the  line  of  the  apostolical  succession  of  the 
American  Episcopal  church;  and,  beyond  a  doubt,  there  are 
very  many,  just  weak  and  ignorant  enough  to  swallow  the 
joke.  They  stare  at  this  array  of  names  with  profound  vene- 
ration, never  doubting  that  it  is  a  veritable  genealogy,  by  which 
the  apostolical  descent  of  our  American  episcopal  prelates  is 
established,  as  really  and  truly  as  the  Kneal  descent  of  Christ 
from  Abraham  through  David,  by  the  genealogy  given  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Matthew's  gospel.  There  is  now  and  then, 
however,  I  suppose,  a  man  who  knows  that  this  line  of  apostol- 
ical succession  is,  for  the  most  part,  as  fanciful  as  that  famous 
vine,  of  which  I  have  an  indistinct  recollection,  in  the  old  nur- 
ser}^  tale,  that  grew  up  to  the  moon,  upon  which  an  aspiring 
English  gentleman  once  ascended,  till  his  progress  was  cut 
short  by  the  severe  and  awful  tones  of  a  huge  giant,  growling 

from  above. 

"  Phe,  phi,  pho,  phum,"  etc. 

Episcopalians,  assuming  that  their  theory  is  sound,  and  that 
the  very  existence  of  the  christian  church  depends  upon  a  true 
succession  in  a  line  of  bishops  from  the  apostles,  infer  that  that 
succession  has  been  maintained,  and  that  they  have  it,  from 
the  acknowledged  care  which  God  exercises  over  his  church. 
Taking  for  granted  the  main  thing  to  be  proved,  that  the  true 
church  exists  by  virtue  of  the  apostolical  succession  in  a  line  of 
bishops,  they  say,  it  betrays  an  infidel  spirit  toward  God,  to 
suppose  that  he  has  not  taken  care  of  the  succession,  and  pre- 
served its  integrity.  It  is  a  favorite  notion  with  them  to  place 
this  succession  of  theirs  on  the  same  ground  of  importance  to 


302  THE    CHURCH, 

the  churcli,  with  the  holy  scriptures,  and  then  to  argue,  that  as 
the  providence  of  God  has  preserved  the  latter  in  their  integrity, 
in  all  the  translations  through  which  they  have  passed,  from 
generation  to  generation,  so,  we  may  believe,  that  it  has  the 
former.  They  do  not,  therefore,  demand  absolute  proof  of  their 
succession  as  a  fact^  but  are  willing  to  take  it  upon  trust.  This 
presumption  lacks  nothing  to  make  it  forcible^  save  some  rea- 
sonable evidence  in  favor  of  the  episcopal  theory.  Let  us  have 
proof  that  the  apostolical  succession  stands  on  the  same  ground 
of  importance  to  the  church  with  the  holy  scriptures,  and  then 
we  shall  begin  to  listen  with  respect  to  this  kind  of  reasoning. 

We  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that  if  a  true  succession  from  the 
apostles,  in  a  line  of  bishops,  were  in  any  manner  essential  to 
the  existence  of  the  christian  church,  God  would  have  taken 
care,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  should  be  no  room  for  doubt 
in  the  minds  of  any  of  his  people  respecting  its  importance ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  that  there  should  be  no  lack  of  evi- 
dence in  regard  to  the  regularity  of  the  succession  as  a  fact. 
He  would  have  provided  us,  on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are 
come,  with  as  ample  means  of  satisfaction  respecting  the  suc- 
cession, both  as  a  doctrine  and  a  fact,  as  we  have  for  satisfying 
ourselves  respecting  the  divine  origin,  and  the  present  purity  of 
the  scriptures.  He  would  not  have  permitted  any  serious  dark- 
ness to  gather  over  this  subject  in  either  branch  of  it.  Instead 
of  inferring  the  succession  as  a  fact,  from  an  assumption  of  the 
principle  of  prelatic  episcopacy,  we  infer  from  the  utter  impossi- 
bility of  estabhshing  the  principle  that  it  is  absurd  to  look  for 
ihoifact;  and  from  the  equal  impossibility  of  establishing  the 
fact,  we  are  still  more  strengthened  in  our  conviction  that  there 
is  no  confidence  to  be  put  in  the  principle.  We  think  our 
method  of  reasoning  evinces  no  less  piety,  and  far  more  good 
sense,  than  that  of  our  opponents. 

In  a  direct  inspection  of  the  catalogue  of  bishops  with  which 
we  are  furnished,  as  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Chapin,  a  variety  of 
points  is  presented,  which  invite  our  attention.     We  can  not 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  303 

even  glance  at  all  of  them.  We  propose  simply  to  furnish  ex- 
amples of  the  kind  of  criticism  to  which  this  catalogue  is  liable. 

If  we  begin  at  the  beginning,  the  name  which  first  offers  itself, 
is  that  of  St.  John  the  apostle.  Now  was  St.  John  the  apos- 
tle, a  bishop  ?  Is  he  ever  so  styled  in  the  scriptures  ?  Pres- 
byter he  calls  himself,  but  where  bishop  ?  In  what  one  respect 
can  it  be  shown  that  he  resembled  a  modern  episcopal  prelate  ? 
By  what  right,  then,  is  his  name  placed  at  the  head  of  such  a 
catalogue  as  this  ?  Had  he  any  oflBcial  character  save  his  pres- 
byterial  one,  which  was  communicable  to  others,  and  in  which 
he  might  have  successors  ?  This  list  of  episcopal  bishops,  at  its 
very  first  name,  revives  the  whole  of  our  previous  discussion  in 
regard  to  the  apostolical  office,  and  if  we  have  shown,  as  we 
certainly  claim  to  have  done,  that  the  apostolical  office  was  ex- 
traordinary, and  not  successive,  either  in  its  nature  or  design, 
we  might  reasonably  be  saved  from  any  farther  trouble  with 
this  subject.  If  the  apostles,  as  such,  were  not  bishops,  and 
their  apostolic  office  was  not  successive,  then,  of  course,  the 
whole  claim  of  prelatic  succession  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  look  at  the  next  name,  that  of  Polycarp,  bishop  of 
Smyrna.  Has  it  ever  been  proved,  or  can  it  be,  that  Polycarp 
was  bishop  of  Smyrna  in  the  prelatic  sense  ?  We  have  demon- 
strated in  the  most  conclusive  manner,  that  for  the  first  two 
centuries  and  upward,  the  term  bishop  was  used  in  the  church 
convertibly  with  presbyter^  precisely  as  it  is  used  by  the  sa- 
cred writers  themselves  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  that  the 
utmost  distinction  that  appears  during  all  that  period,  is  that  of 
president-presbyter,  or  pastor,  presiding  over  a  single  congrega- 
tion, differing  from  other  presbyters  in  the  nature  of  his  duties 
but  not  at  aU  in  the  grade  of  his  ministerial  office.  We  affirm 
here,  and  we  claim  to  have  proved,  that  Polycarp  was  no  more 
a  bishop  in  the  sense  in  which  William  White  was  bishop  of 
Pennsylvania,  than  he  was  civil  magistrate  or  king.  The  grand 
difficulty  with  this  succession  of  diocesan  prelates  is,  that  it 
lacks  a  beginning.     Our  Episcopal  brethren  never  can  show, 


304  THE  CHURCH, 

either  that  the  apostleship  was  intended  to  be  perpetuated  by- 
such  a  succession  as  they  claim,  or  that  such  a  succession,  in 
point  of  fact,  ever  commenced. 

But  it  is  not  solely  for  the  lack  of  a  beginning  that  this  chain 
fails.  We  are  prepared  to  show,  even  on  episcopal  principles, 
that  there  are  breaks  in  it  all  along  in  its  continuation.  Let  us 
take  the  name  of  Phlegmund,,  ordained  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bur}'-,  according  to  Godwin  in  his  lives  of  the  English  bishops, 
by  pope  Formosus,  A.  D.  891.  Of  this  pontiff  it  is  credibly 
affirmed,  that  he  obtained  his  election  by  perjury,  and  that  his 
entire  life  was  one  of  the  most  abandoned  and  outrageous  wick- 
edness. Cormeniu,  himself  a  Roman  Catholic,  says  of  him,  in 
his  history  of  the  popes,  that  "  he  died  at  the  age  of  eighty 
years,  after  having  put  to  death  in  his  quarrels,  one  half  of  the 
population  of  Rome."  His  authority,  at  the  time  of  his  eleva- 
tion to  the  popedom,  was  violently  disputed,  on  the  ground 
both  of  personal  ineligibility  and  irregularity  in  the  proceedings ; 
and  after  his  death,  Stephen  Seventh  caused  his  dead  body  to 
be  exhumed,  and  a  formal  sentence  of  condemnation  to  be 
passed  against  him,  for  having  ^^ pushed  his  ambition  so  far,  as 
to  usurp  the  See  of  Rome,  in  defiance  of  the  sacred  canons^ 
which  forbade  this  infamous  action"  All  his  ordinations  were 
declared  to  be  null  and  void,  and  those  whom  he  had  ordained 
were  directed  to  be  ordained  again.  This  decree  of  condemna- 
tion against  Formosus,  was  afterward  confirmed,  in  its  utmost 
extent,  by  pope  Sergius  Third. 

Now  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  fitness  of  Formosus  to  per- 
petuate the  succession.  It  is  claimed  by  Episcopalians  that 
neither  the  character  of  the  ordainer,  nor  the  manner  in  which 
he  obtained  his  place,  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  validity  of 
his  acts,  —  that  the  simple  question  is  —  was  he  fully  invested 
with  the  episcopal  office  ?  But  if  the  acts  of  Formosus  were 
valid,  so  also  were  those  of  Stephen  Seventh,  and  Sergius  Third. 
What,  in  this  case,  becomes  of  those  whom  Formosus  ordained, 
and   of   their    successors?      Phlegmund,  who  received   from 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  305 

Formosus  whatever  episcopal  grace  he  may  have  had,  is  placed 
then,  to  say  the  least,  in  an  extremely  questionable  position. 
We  believe  that  to  the  great  majority  of  unbiased  minds,  the 
chain  of  the  English  apostolical  succession,  will  forever  seem  to 
be  in  want  of  a  link  at  his  name,  and  that  no  possible  reasoning 
will  avail  to  persuade  them  of  the  contrary. 

The  next  name  to  which  we  direct  attention  is  that  of  Ro- 
dolph  or  Rodulph,  put  down  in  the  list  as  ordained  A,  D.  1114. 
Of  this  archbishop,  it  is  said  by  Selden,  (works,  vol.  iii,)  that 
he  was  invested  with  his  office  merely  by  receiving  from  the 
king,  the  pastoral  staff  and  ring,  without  any  consecration 
whatever.  "  Much  stir,"  says  Selden,  "  both  at  Rome  and  in 
England,  was  touching  investiture  of  bishops  and  abbots  by 
lay  hands;  Anselm,  archprelate  of  Canterbury,  mainly  oppos- 
ing himself  against  it,  whose  persuasion  so  wrought  with  the 
king,  that  it  was  permitted  to  be  discontinued  from  that  time. 
Notwithstanding  this,  in  the  year  1107,  hy  the  ring  and  pasto- 
ral staff — per  annulum  et  baculum,  {as  Matthew  Paris  tells,) 
was,  by  the  same  Henry,  one  Rodolph  made  archbishop  of 
CanterburyP  There  is  a  slight  discrepancy  of  the  dates,  but 
the  identity  of  the  persons  can  not  be  questioned.  What 
becomes,  then,  of  the  link  in  this  chain  of  succession,  at  the 
name  of  Rodulph? 

We  refer  next  to  the  case  of  Henry  Chichely,  ordained  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  A.  D.  1414,  by  pope  Gregory  Twelfth. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  character  of  either  of  these  personages,  it 
is  enough  to  inform  the  reader  that  Gregory  was  one  of  three 
who  claimed,  at  the  same  time,  to  be  invested  with  the  papal 
authority;  that  previous  to  his  ordination  of  Chichely,  he  had 
been  condemned  in  a  council,  and  that,  subsequently,  at  the 
council  of  Constance,  all  his  acts  were  formally  disanmdledy 
and  he  was  declared  to  be  neither  pope  nor  bishop.  How, 
then,  stands  the  case  with  Chichely,  on  episcopal  principles  ? 
Was  he  a  true  successor  of  the  apostles?  I  think  it  will 
be  difficult  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind,  that  the  chain  of 


306  THE  CHURCH, 

the  English  apostolical  succession  is  not  broken  again  at  this 
place. 

Matthew  Parker,  ordained  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.  D. 
1559,  is  in  even  a  worse  predicament.  I  find  his  case  so  well 
stated  in  a  recent  publication,  which  has  just  come  into  my 
hands,  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  J.  N.  Campbell,  of  Albany,  that  I 
can  not  forbear  to  quote  it  in  full :  "  Dr.  Matthew  Parker,  was 
consecrated  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  obedience  to  letters 
patent  of  queen  Elizabeth,  in  the  year  1559,  in  the  chapel  of 
the  palace  of  Lambeth.  Strype  and  Burnet,  the  Episcopal,  and 
Neal,  the  Puritan  historian,  all  agree  that  the  persons  who  per- 
formed this  act  were  Barlow,  Scory,  Coverdale,  and  Hodgkins. 
These  bishops,  according  to  Neal,  had  been  deprived  {i.  e. 
deposed)  in  the  last  reign,  for  not  one  of  the  present  bishops 
would  officiate  —  facts  admitted  by  the  two  other  historians. 
Strype  says  of  this  consecration,  '  all  things  w^ere  rightly  and 
canonically  performed.'  Neal  says,  *  it  was  performed  in  a  plain 
manner, —  only  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  by  prayer.' 
But  the  point  to  which  we  desire  to  direct  attention,  is  the 
unquestionable  fact,  that  doubts  were  entertained  at  the  time, 
w^hether  Parker's  consecration  was  valid,  principally  because 
the  persons  peforming  the  act  had  been  deposed  in  the  last 
reign,  and  had  not  yet  been  restored.  Accordingly,  to  allay 
these  doubts,  seven  yeai-s  after  the  consecration,  the  parliament 
passed  an  act  to  confirm  the  validity  of  it,  which  set  forth, 
according  to  Strype,  the  Episcopal  historian,  that  the  queen 
had,  in  her  '  letters  patent,'  '  by  her  supreme  power  and  author- 
ity, dispensed  with  all  cases  or  doubts  of  any  imperfection  or 
disability  that  might  any  way  be  objected  against  the  same.' 
Such  is  the  source  from  which  the  whole  English  succession 
flows:  a  consecration  commanded  by  the  queen  of  England, 
performed  by  four  bishops  deposed  by  the  same  authority 
which  created  them,  and  confirmed  by  an  act  of  parliament ;  a 
consecration  in  which  the  church  had  no  voice,  and  declared, 
by  even  the  Oxford  divines,  to  be  irregular  and  a  scandal." 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  307 

I  will  not  ask,  as  Dr.  Campbell  does,  if  there  is  not  abund- 
ant ground  here  for  suspicion  and  doubt,  but  I  ask,  if  it  is  .not 
perfectly  evident,  even  on  Anglican  principles,  that  the  chain 
of  succession  is  absolutely  broken  in  Matthew  Parker  ?  Does 
not  deposition  disqualify  a  christian  minister  from  performing 
any  ministerial  acts  ?  Of  what  avail,  then,  was  the  form  of 
consecration  in  this  case?  And  could  an  act  of  parliament, 
authorized  by  a  queen  of  England,  make  up  the  deficiency 
which  here  existed  ? 

Coming  down,  now,  to  more  recent  times,  I  would  inquire 
of  the  defenders  of  the  English  apostolical  succession,  whether 
it  has  yet  been  proved,  that  archbishop  Tillotson  ever  received 
christian  baptism?  Of  course,  on  Anglican  principles,  he 
could  not  have  been  bishop  without  this,  for  without  it  he  was 
not  even  a  christian,  or  a  member  of  the  church.  Evidence  of 
this  archbishop's  baptism  has  a  thousand  times  been  asked  for, 
but  has  never  yet  been  furnished.  He,  in  his  own  lifetime,  was 
repeatedly  challenged  to  produce  proof  on  this  point,  but  never 
did  it.  That  he  was  not  baptized  in  infancy  is  undeniable, 
since  his  father  was  a  Baptist,  and  no  proof  whatever  exists,  of 
his  having  received  the  ordinance  afterward.  Under  all  the 
circumstances,  considering  how  much  has  been  said  on  this 
subject,  how  much  was  said  while  Tillotson  lived,  and  how 
often  the  proof  of  his  baptism  was  called  for,  and  called  for  in 
vain,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  this  prelate  was  really  an  unbap- 
tized  person.  That  he  was  ever  ordained  as  a  deacon,  is 
as  much  a  matter  of  doubt,  as  that  he  was  baptized.  How 
will  our  Episcopal  friends  dispose  of  this  difficulty,  and  relieve 
their  succession  of  the  fatal  doubts  that  are  again  gathering 
over  it  ? 

Similar  to  the  case  of  Tillotson,  is  that  of  Thomas  Seeker, 
elevated  to  the  see  of  Canterbury  in  1738.  This  person  was 
baptized,  but  on  Anglican  principles  his  baptism  was  of  no 
account.  Says  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  vol.  xii,  of  his  miscellaneous 
works,  page  171, —  "Mr.  Thomas  Seeker,  afterward  archbishop 


308  THE  CHURCH, 

of  Canterbury,  was  the  son  of  a  dissenting  minister,  born  in 
1693.  He  was  baptized  after  the  form  of  that  church,  and 
studied  at  three  dissenting  schools  successively,  until  he  was 
nineteen  years  of  age,  when  he  went  to  the  university  of 
Oxford,  and  afterward  entered  the  communion  of  the  church  of 
England."  Clarke  proceeds  with  a  particular  account  of  the 
successive  steps  by  which  he  finally  attained  to  the  primacy, 
and  adds, —  "We  hear  nothing  of  his  ever  having  been 
rebaptized." 

Again,  therefore,  What  becomes,  on  Anglican  principles,  of 
the  boasted  succession?  Either  Seeker  was  not  a  successor 
to  the  apostles,  being  not  even  a  member  of  the  christian 
church,  or,  the  ministrations  of  men  not  episcopally  ordained 
are  valid. 

Thus  I  might  amuse  myself  to  almost  any  extent,  in 
pointing  out  defects  in  this  most  amusing  line  of  Episcopal 
genealogies ;  but  why  should  I  multiply  examples,  when  one  is 
enough  ? 

What  I  would  like  to  say,  in  concluding  this  chapter,  I  prefer 
to  say  in  the  language  of  eminent  Episcopalians. 

Archbishop  Whately,  in  illustrating  the  small  reliance  which 
can  be  placed  on  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings,  by  which, 
anciently,  individuals  were  raised  to  the  episcopal  dignity, 
says, —  "Even  in  later,  arid  more  civilized  and  enlightened 
times,  the  probability  of  an  irregularity,  though  very  greatly 
diminished,  is  diminished  only,  and  not  absolutely  destroyed. 
Even  in  the  memory  of  persons  living,  there  existed  a  bishop, 
concerning  whom  there  was  so  much  mystery  and  uncertainty 
prevailing,  as  to  when,  and  where,  and  by  whom,  he  had 
been  ordained,  that  doubts  existed  in  the  minds  of  many 
persons,  whether  he  had  ever  been  ordained  at  all." 

Again  he  says, —  "  Irregularities  could  not  have  been  wholly 
excluded  without  a  perpetual  miracle ;  and  that  no  such  mirac- 
ulous interference  existed,  we  have  historical  proof.  Amidst 
the  numerous  corruptions  of  doctrine  and  practice,  and  gross 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  309 

superstitions  that  crept  in  during  those  ages,  we  find  recorded 
descriptions,  not  only  of  profound  ignorance  and  profligacy  of 
life,  of  many  of  the  clergy,  but  also  of  the  grossest  irregulari- 
ties in  respect  of  discipline  and  form.  We  hear  of  bishops 
consecrated  when  mere  children ;  of  men  officiating,  who  barely 
knew  their  letters;  of  prelates  expelled,  and  others  put  into 
their  places  by  violence ;  of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen,  and 
habitual  drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders;  and  in  short,  of 
the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder,  and  reckless  disregard 
of  the  decency  which  the  apostle  enjoins.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  any  one  even  moderately  acquainted  ivith  history^  can  feel 
a  certainty  that^  amidst  all  this  cwifusion  and  corruption^ 
EVERY  REQUISITE  FORM  was  in  EVERY  INSTANCE  strictly  ad- 
hered to,  by  men,  many  of  them  openly  profane  and  secular^ 
unrestrained  by  public  opinion,  through  the  gross  ignorance 
of  the  population  among  which  they  lived,  and  that  no  one  not 
duly  consecrated  and  ordained  was  admitted  to  sacred  offices^ 

It  seems  to  me,  speaking  with  all  honesty,  that  there  must 
be  some  singular  defect  in  the  structure  of  that  person's  mind, 
who  does  not  perceive  the  unanswerable  force  of  Whately's 
statement  in  this  passage.  He  says,  in  the  same  connection, — 
"  There  is  not  a  minister  in  all  Christendom,  who  is  able  to 
trace  up,  with  any  approach  to  certainty,  his  own  spiritual 
pedigree." 

Dr.  John  Brown,  of  Edinburgh,  Scotland, — whom  I  quote 
here  for  the  sake  of  his  own  citations  contained  in  the  passage, — 
in  his  book  on  "Puseyite  Episcopacy,"  page  256,  says,  that  in  re- 
gard to  the  ancient  bishops,  "  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  produce 
any  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  their  baptisms,  or  of  the  va- 
lidity of  their  orders,  or  to  tell,  in  many  instances,  which  of  them 
was  first  and  which  of  them  was  last.  Eusebius,  the  most 
early  of  our  church  historians,  confesses  that  he  could  not  do 
it ;  for  he  says,  that  he  was  '■  like  a  man  walking  through  a 
desert,  with  only  here  and  there  a  light  to  direct  him;'  and 
that  he  had  been  able  to  collect  such  notices  as  he  had  procured, 


310  THE   CHURCH, 

*  of  the  successors,  not  of  all,  but  only  of  the  more  illustrious 
apostles.^ — Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  i,  cap.  1.  And  if  such  was  his 
want  of  light  in  the  fourth  century,  will  you,  or  Mr.  Newman, 
or  Mr.  Gladstone,  throw  more  light  on  these  matters  in  the 
nineteenth?  And  he  says,  in  another  passage,  'Who  they 
were,  that  imitating  these  apostles,  (Peter  and  Paul,)  were  by 
them  thought  worthy  to  govern  the  churches  which  they 
planted,  is  no  easy  thing  to  tell,  excepting  such  as  may  he  col- 
lected from  PauVs  own  ivords^ —  Lib.  iii,  cap.  4.  On  which 
Stillingfleet  remarks  —  'Then  what  becomes  of  our  unques- 
tionable line  of  succession  of  the  bishops  of  several  churches, 
and  the  large  diagi-ams  made  of  the  apostolical  churches,  with 
every  one's  name  set  down  in  his  order,  as  if  the  writer  had 
been  clarencieux  to  the  apostles  themselves  ?  Are  all  the  great 
outcries  of  apostolical  tradition,  of  personal  succession,  of  un- 
questionable records,  resolved  at  last  into  the  scripture  itself,  by 
him  from  whom  all  these  long  pedigrees  are  fetched  ?  Then 
let  succession  know  its  place,  and  learn  to  vaile  bonnet  to  the 
scriptures ;  and  withal,  let  men  take  heed  of  overreaching  them- 
selves, when  they  would  bring  down  so  large  a  catalogue  of 
single  bishops  from  the  first  and  purest  times  of  the  church, 
for  it  will  be  hard  to  others  to  believe  them,  when  Eusebius 
professeth  it  so  hard  to  find  them.' — Irenicum,  page  297." 

Bishop  Hoadley  says, — "As  far  as  we  can  judge  of  this, 
God's  providence  never  yet,  in  fact,  kept  up  a  regular,  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  rightful  bishops."  "  It  hath  not  pleased 
God  in  his  providence,  to  keep  any  proof  of  the  least  proha- 
hility,  or  moral  possibility  of  a  regular  uninterrupted  succession ; 
but  there  is  a  great  appearance,  and  humanly  speaking,  a  cer- 
tainty of  the  contrary,  that  the  succession  hath  often  been 
interrupted.''^ 

The  bishop  of  Hereford,  in  a  charge  some  years  since  to  his 
clergy,  uses  the  following  language, — "  You  will  exceed  all  just 
bounds,  if  you  are  constantly  insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  a 
behef  in,  and  the  certainty  of  the  apostohcal  succession  in  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  311 

bishops  and  presbyters  of  our  church,  as  the  only  security  for 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments," — "  To  spread  abroad  this  notion, 
would  be  to  make  ourselves  the  derision  of  the  world." 

Riddle,  another  English  Episcopalian,  in  his  "Plea  for 
Episcopacy,"  says, — "Whatever  may  become  of  the  apostolic 
succession  as  a  theory,  or  an  institute,  it  is  impossible  at  all 
events,  to  prove  the  fact  of  such  a  succession,  or  to  trace  it 
down  the  stream  of  time.  In  this  case,  the  fact  seems  to 
involve  the  doctrine ;  and  if  the  fact  be  hopelessly  obscure,  the 
doctrine  is  irrecoverably  lostP  *  *  *  "  It  is  impossible  to 
prove  the  personal  succession  of  modern  bishops,  in  an  unbroken 
episcopal  hne,  from  the  apostles,  or  men  of  thea  postolic  age." 

We  conclude  with  i-emarking,  that  if  our  Episcopal  brethren 
can  find  a  pleasing  entertainment  in  attempts  to  trace  back  the 
genealogies  of  their  bishops  to  the  apostles,  we  are  sincerely 
glad  of  it,  but  they  must  not  require  us  to  receive  their  playful 
fancies  for  sober  historical  verities.  We  can  look  upon  it  as 
nothing  less  than  an  insult  offered  to  our  common  sense. 


HISTORICAL  NOTICES. 

Under  this  caption,  an  anonymous  friend  of  Mr.  Schuyler, 
at  page  215  of  his  book,  is  very  severe  upon  me  for  alledged 
blunders,  or  worse  than  blunders,  in  certain  historical  references 
contained  in  my  sermon.  We  are  informed  in  the  brief  note 
with  which  Mr.  S.  presents  him  to  his  readers,  that  he  "  has 
access  to  one  of  the  best  private  libraries  in  the  United  States." 
We  should  expect  him,  therefore,  to  be  a  person  of  large 
attainments,  and  thoroughly  versed  in  all  these  matters. 

I  said,  "  It  is  given  on  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  that  at  a 
council  held  in  Antioch  in  the  year  260,  there  were  present 
more  than  six  hundred  bishops."  The  learned  gentleman  thus 
notices  my  assertion, — "  I  have  hunted  out  his  quotations  from 
Eusebius.     Dr.  T.  never  could  have  read  Eusebius,  or  if  he 


312  THE  CHURCH, 

has,  he  is  open  to  the  charge  of  dishonesty;  besides  he  is 
incorrect  in  his  dates."  In  regard  to  the  date,  I  am  quite  wil- 
ling to  confess  that  either  through  an  oversight  of  my  own  in 
copying,  or  through  a  fault  of  the  printer,  and  of  my  proof- 
reading, an  error  of  five  years  was  really  committed.  It  should 
have  been  265,  and  not  260.  This  however,  can  not  be  con- 
sidered a  very  serious  inadvertance.  But  what  else  was  so  very 
wrong  in  my  statement  as  to  justify  the  opinion,  that  I  have  never 
read  Eusehius^  or  else,  am  open  to  the  charge  of  dishonesty? 
I  said,  "  more  than  six  hundred  bishops  were  present  at  the 
council."  Is  not  this  exactly  what  Eusebius  affirms?  My 
astute  critic  annihilates  me  in  the  following  manner : 

"Of  the  second  council  in  265,  Eusebius  says, —  book  vii: 
chap.  28,  after  naming  several  bishops  who  took  an  active  part: 
*  Sex  centos  quoque  alios  qui  una  cum  presbyteris  et  diaconis,  eo 
confluxerunt,  nequaquam  difficile  fuerit  recusere,  verum  hie  quos 
dixi  illustres  prae  ceteris  habebantur.'  '  Six  hundred  other 
bishops  also,  who  together  with  presbyters  and  deacons, 
flocked  thither,  and  whom  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  enu- 
merate.' " 

The  reader,  by  noticing  the  italics  and  the  capitals  used  by 
the  writer  in  his  rendering  of  the  passage  from  Eusebius,  will 
be  able  to  comprehend  his  idea.  He  supposes  that  the  "  more 
than  six  hundred,"  is  to  be  made  up  by  counting  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  and  deacons  together!  I  would  like  to  know 
whether  I  am  replying  to  the  criticism  of  a  bny  who  has  access 
to  his  father'' s  library,  or  to  the  very  owner  of  the  library.  If 
to  the  latter,  there  is  no  hope  for  him.  He  will  surely  die  a 
blockhead  in  spite  of  his  opportunities.  If  a  lad  in  any  respect- 
able grammar  school  in  our  city  should  make  a  blunder  like 
this,  he  would  deserve  to  be  beaten.  "  Several  bishops  who 
took  an  active  partj''  and  "  sex  centos  quoque  ahos,"  six  hundred 
others  also,  make  "more  than  six  hundred  bishops,"  who, 
according  to  Eusebius,  "  with  the  presbyters  and  deacons  that 
flocked  thither,  it  would  be  difficult  to  enumerate."     I  will  not 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  313 

say  that  this  critic  proves  himself,  either  to  have  never  read 
Eusebius,  or  to  be  open  to  the  charge  of  dishonesty;  but  I  do 
say,  that  however  much  he  may  read  Eusebius,  or  any  other 
author,  he  is  Httle  hkely  to  be  made  the  wiser, —  and  that  he 
evidently  lacks  the  wit  to  do  much  mischief  in  the  world  by 
his  knavery. 

My  next  assertion  was,  that  "as  late  as  the  year  410,  Augus- 
tine and  the  bishops  of  his  province  in  Africa,  held  a  conference 
with  the  Donatists,  at  which  there  were  present  over  five  hun- 
dred bishops."     My  critic  completely  stultifies  himself  again  on 
this  point.     He  goes  into  a  very  careful  history  of  the  affair 
with  the  Donatists,  in  the  course  of  which  he  says, — "  When, 
however,   Attains  was  put  down,  not  five  hundred,  but  two 
hundred  and  seventeen   bishops  of  Africa,  feeling   that   his 
rescript  was  injurious  to  the  Catholic  church,  met  at  Carthage, 
in  the  year  410,  for  the  purpose  of  petitioning  Honorius  to 
recall  his  rescripts.     Augustine  was  present,  but  did  not  preside, 
as  one  would  infer  from  Dr.  Thompson's  statement,  but  Aurelius, 
bishop  of  Carthage.     Dr.  T.  gives  his  quotations  so  unfairly," 
&c.     What  has  this  sixth  provincial  council  held  in  Carthage, 
in  410,  to  do  with  the  conference  of  which  I  spoke?     /was 
not  talking  about  the  council,  but  another  matter  entirely,  a 
conference  agreed  upon  at  that  council,  and  held  very  soon 
after, —  some  say  the  same  year,  some  the  year  after,  for  which 
reason  I  was  careful  in  my  sermon  to  say,  "  as  late  as  the  year 
410."     Let  Mosheim  be  heard, — vol.  2,  chap,  v,  sec  2, — "Thi» 
law,  however,  was  not  of  long  duration.     (The  law  of  the  em- 
peror Honorious,  giving  religious  toleration  to  all  parties.)     It 
was  abrogated  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  solicitations  of  the 
council  which  was  held  at  Carthage  in  the  year  410;    and 
Marcellinus,  the  tribune,  was  sent  by  Honorius  into  Africa,  with 
full  pov/er  to  bring  to  an  end  this  tedious  and  unhappy  con- 
test.    Marcellinus,  therefore,  held  at  Carthage  in  the  year  411, 
a  solemn  conference,^''  &c.     "  The  catholic  bishops  who  were 
present  at  this  conference,  were  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  in 
15 


314  THE   CHURCH, 

number ;  and  those  of  the  Donatists  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
nine."  Now,  if  we  add  together  two  hundred  and  eighty-six 
bishops  and  two  hundred  and  seventy-nine  bishops,  the  sum, 
that  is,  if  bishops  add  hke  other  people,  is,  I  beheve,  "  over  five 
hundred  bishops,"  according  to  my  statement.  Bishop  Burnet, 
also,  in  his  observations  on  the  first  and  second  canons,  called 
apostolical,  says, — "  In  some  countries  we  find  the  bishoprics 
very  thick  set.  They  were  pretty  throng  in  Afi'ick ;  for,  in  a 
conference  which  Austine  and  the  bishops  of  that  province  had 
with  the  Donatists,  there  were  of  bishops  present,  two  hundred 
and  eighty-six,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  absent,  and  sixty 
sees  vacant,  which  in  all  makes  four  hundred  and  sixty-six. 
There  were  also  two  hundred  and  seventy-nine  of  Donatist 
bishops."  I  trust  that  this  matter  now  is  straight,  so  that  my 
reviewer  can  understand  it. 

Again ;  I  am  sharply  called  to  my  account  by  this  accom- 
plished gentleman  for  a  misnomer.  He  says, — "He,  (Dr. 
Thompson,)  quotes  *  Victor  Uticensis : '  the  work  turns  out  to 
be  '  Victor  Vitensis.'  How  he  makes  out  of  it '  Uticensis,'  he 
ought  to  explain." 

I  will,  with  all  my  heart,  my  dear  sir ;  —  First,  then,  you 
must  know  that  Victor  was  bishop,  as,  in  those  early  times, 
they  were  in  the  habit  of  calling  all  pastors  of  churches,  of 
Utica,  or,  which  is  equivalent,  of  the  church  in  Utica;  not 
Utica  on  the  Mohawk  river,  in  this  state,  but  a  famous  cit}'^  of 
the  Phoenicians,  on  the  northern  coast  of  Africa.  Are  you 
attending?  Well,  then;  he  is  called  Uticensis,  from  Utica, 
the  place  where  he  lived,  by  converting  the  final  vowel  into 
ensis,  a  very  common  method  among  the  Greeks  of  getting 
new  names  of  distinction  for  individuals  who  needed  them.  I 
hope  I  make  myself  intelligible.  The  younger  Cato,  it  may 
be  recollected  by  you,  from  your  extensive  reading  in  that  best 
private  library  in  the  United  States,  committed  suicide  in  this 
same  city  of  Utica,  whence  he  was  styled,  as  a  convenient  way 
of  distinguishing  him  from  all  other  Catos,  "  Cato  Uticensis, ^^ 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  315 

By  good  writers,  Victor  has  very  generally  gone  by  the  name 
of  Uticensis,  from  the  first;  yet  by  a  corriiiDt  change  of  the  u 
into  v,  by  dropping  one  letter  and  transposing  another,  some 
have  made  Vitensis  out  of  it,  for  which  they  ought  to  be 
ashamed. 

I  said,  "Victor  Uticensis  informs  us  in  his  book,  "i)e  Fersecu- 
tione  Vandalica,''^  (the  book  may  be  found  by  those  who  desire 
to  see  it,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum,)  which  was  a  pei-secution 
by  one  body  of  christians  against  another, —  that  from  the  part 
of  Africa  in  which  it  raged,  six  hundred  and  sixty  bishops  fled, 
besides  a  great  number  who  were  imprisoned,  and  many  more 
who  w^ere  tolerated.  Upon  the  lowest  estimate,  counting  the 
bishops  of  the  persecuting  party  with  those  of  the  persecuted, 
there  could  not  have  been  fewer  of  them  in  that  part  of  Africa 
alone,  than  from  two  to  three  thousand.  My  object  was,  to  show 
from  the  great  number  of  bishops,  that  these  bishops  could  not 
have  been  diocesans,  in  the  episcopal  sense,  but  must  have  been 
simipiiy  pastors  of  churches,  ordinary  christian  ministers;  the 
word  bishop  being  used  in  the  New  Testament  sense.  My  critic 
says, —  "I  hardly  think- Dr.  T.  could  have  made  such  a  parade 
about  the  six  hundred  and  sixty  fugitive  bishops,  which  he  esti- 
mates to  be  about  one-third  of  the  whole,  had  he  hiown,  as  we 
do,  that  the  primitive  practice  was  to  ordain  bishops  in  every 
city."  Why,  my  dear  sir,  I  reply,  that  is  the  very  thing  which  I 
do  know,  and  which  I  desired  to  make  my  hearers  know  when 
I  preached  that  sermon.  "  The  primitive  practice  was  to  ordain 
bishops  in  every  city ; "  and  more  than  that,  in  every  place 
where  a  ^christian  church  was  gathered,  just  as  the  practice  of 
Presbyterians  always  has  been,  and  is  at  this  day ;  and  hence 
we  infer,  that  the  primitive  bishops,  instead  of  being  prelates, 
like  bishops  in  the  Episcopal  church,  were  plain  Presbyterian 
ministers,  each  one  having  charge  of  his  own  parish,  and,  as 
a  bishop  indeed,  ''feeding  the  floclc  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight thereof r  My  object  was  to  show,  that  as  the  term  bishop 
in  the  New  Testament,  means  simply  minister,  or  pastor,  so 


316  THE  CHURCH, 

in  the  early  records  of  the  church,  in  the  times  immediately 
following  those  of  the  Ne\Y  Testament  writers,  it  means  the 
same;  and  the  proof  in  part,  was  drawn  from  the  very  great 
number  of  bishops,  showing  that  all  the  pastors  of  churches 
must  have  received  that  designation.  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  number  of  churches  exceeded  the  number  of  bishops,  when, 
by  the  lowest  possible  estimate,  there  were  at  least  two  thousand 
of  the  latter  in  a  single  small  district  of  Africa  ? 

In  these  early  times  it  may  be  mentioned  here  as  a  fact, 
that  on  the  island  of  Crete,  just  about  one-third  as  large  as 
the  little  state  of  Maryland,  there  were  one  hundred  bishops. 
Were  they  Episcopal  prelates,  does  any  one  suppose,  or  Presby- 
terian pastors  ?  I  might  give  any  number  of  similar  examples, 
showing,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  rational  doubt,  that  the 
primitive  bishops  were  nothing  more  nor  less  than  parish 
ministers. 

I  have  devoted  space  enough  to  this  subject.  The  reader 
perceives,  that,  in  every  material  instance,  the  statements  of  my 
sermon  were  rigidly  correct,  and  that  the  attempt  to  disprove 
them  has  only  betrayed  the  utter  incompetency  of  the  critic. 
He  evidently  ventured  beyond  his  depth,  not  at  all  compre- 
hending the  topics  to  be  considered.  If  I  have  indulged  in 
unusual  severity  in  my  notice  of  his  strictures,  let  the  amount 
of  provocation  in  the  nature  of  his  attack  upon  me,  be  weighed, 
and  especially  the  impertinence  of  such  an  attack  from  such 
a  person.  Had  he  given  his  name,  I  probably  should  have 
felt  bound  to  treat  him  with  some  respect^  but  the  laws  of 
courtesy  atford  no  protection  to  the  anonymous. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  gj? 

NUMBER    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    AS    COMPARED 
WITH  THE  VARIOUS  OTHER  SECTS. 

'I  said  in  my  sermon,  page  fi%-five,~«  With  the  exception 
ot  the  Enghsh  and  American  Episcopal  churches,  all  the 
reformed  churches  in  the  world  are  Presbyterian ;  that  is  to  say 
they  are  all  organized  on  the  principle  of  parity  in  the  one 
order  of  ministers,  called,  in  the  New  Testament,  presbyters. 
All,  without  exception,  save  Episcopalians,  have  abjured  the 
prmciple  of  hierarchism  as  a  corrupt  invention  of  men,  leaving 
them  in  a  very  small  minority."  What  reply  does  my  reviewer 
make  to  this  ?     Read  it,  and  admire,—  p?ge  217. 

"  Says  bishop  Delancy,  in  his  sermon  entitled  'The  Faithful 
Bishop,'  'geographers  tell  us,  that  of  the  eight  hundred  millions 
of  mhabitants  on  this  globe,  but  httle  more  than  two  hundred 
millions  bear  the  christian  name ;  and  of  these  two  hundred 
milHons,  one  hundred  and  eighty  millions  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  christian  bishops  in  the  church,  as  possessing,  in 
contradistinction  from  other  ministers,  the  governing  and  or- 
daining power.'  In  a  note,  he  (bishop  Delancy)  appends  the 
following : 

"  *  Geographers  differ  somewhat  as  to  the  precise  amount  of 
christian  population  in  the  world.  Malte  Brun  makes  the 
Protestant  population  of  Christendom  about  forty-two  millions ; 
one-half  of  which  being  Episcopal,  would  make  it  stand  thus: 

Total  christian  population  of  the  world,  .  .  .  228,000,000 
Those  who  reject  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the 

*^^^^^^'       • 21,000,000 

Leaving,  as  the  number  of  those  who  retain  the 

^ffi^^' 207,000,000 

"  'According  to  Hassel,  it  would  stand  thus:   Total  christian 
population,  two  hundred  and  fifty-one  milhons;  of  whom  those 


318  THE  CHURCH, 

who  retain  the  office  of  bishop  in  the  church  amount  to  two 
hundred  and  twenty-three  miUions ;  those  who  reject  the  office, 
to  twenty-seven  milhons  and  a  half.  From  other  calculations  it 
is  made  out  that  five-sixths  of  the  christian  world  receive  this 
form  of  the  ministry.' " 

This  is  an  answer,  is  it,  to  my  statement  that  the  Enghsli 
and  American  EjDiscopal  churches  alone,  of  all  the  reformed 
churches  in  the  world,  retain  the  hierarchical  feature,  and  that 
in  so  doing,  compared  of  course  with  other  reformed  churches^ 
they  are  in  a  very  small  minority  ?  I  am  replied  to  by  a  quotation 
from  bishop  Delancy,  which  has  just  about  the  same  relation  to 
the  comparative  amounts  of  population  in  the  several  planets, 
that  it  has  to  the  subject  on  which  my  statement  was  made. 

Who  denies,  that  if  Episcopalians  are  counted  with  all  the 
vast  multitudes  of  nominal  christians  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  Greek  communions,  they  have  a  majority  ?  and  that  if  to 
all  these  are  added  the  Lutherans,  and  Moravians,  and  Metho- 
dists, and  others,  who,  though  they  have  renounced  the  principle 
of  hierarchism,  have  nevertheless  adopted  a  species  of  episco- 
pacy which  we  ourselves  do  not  object  to  for  them,  if  they  hke 
it,  that  majority  is  considerably  increased?  We  made  our 
statement,  let  it  be  observed,  of  reformed  churches^  and  of  the 
principle  of  hierarchism,  not  of  preshyterial  episcopal  super- 
intendence/; and  we  repeat  that  statement  as  literally  true. 

Among  all  christians  that  pretend  to  be  reformed,  the  Epis- 
copalians of  England  and  America  are  perfectly  solitary  in 
maintaining  the  corrupt  institution  of  a  hierarchical  ministry, 
and  in  this  respect  they  are  in  a  very  small  minority.  In 
regard  to  the  principle  oi  parity,  Lutherans,  Moravians,  Metho- 
dists, and  all  others  who  are  called  episcopal  on  account  of  the 
feature  of  superintendency  in  their  ecclesiastical  systems,  are 
with  tis,  and  not  one  whit  behind  us  in  their  abhorrence  of 
Merafchisin,  and  in  this  comparison  are  to  be  counted  with  us. 

The  forms  in  which  Christianity  is  professed  are  very  numer- 
ous, but  the  whole  are  comprehended  in  three  leading  systems : 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  319 

tlie  Roman  Catholic,  the  Eastern  or  Greek,  and  the  Protestant 
or  Reformed.  Protestantism  is  professed  in  two  chief  forms, — 
presbytery,  which  rejects  the  great  external  feature  of  the 
Romish  and  Greek  systems  of  a  hierarchy  of  bishops,  and 
admits  only  the  government  of  the  church  by  a  body  of  minis- 
ters all  equal  in  rank ;  and  episcopacy,  which  retains  that  chief 
external  feature  of  the  Romish  and  Greek  systems,  and  admits 
the  government  of  the  church  by  a  hierarchy  of  bishops,  whose 
spiritual  authority  is  claimed  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles, 
by  transmi-ssion  through  an  uninterrupted  series  of  ordinations 
from  the  beginning.  Now  we  say,  that  in  the  Protestant  or 
reformed  section  of  nominal  Christendom,  to  which  the  Episco- 
pal churches  of  England  and  America  belong,  they,  in  retaining 
the  hierarchical  feature,  stand  alone,  and  are  in  a  very  small 
minority.  I  have  not  the  figures  at  hand  to  show  the  actual 
difference,  but  I  venture  the  opinion  that  they  are  considerably 
less  than  one-fifth  of  the  whole.  Taking  bishop  Delancy's 
statement  from  Malte  Brun,  that  one-half  of  the  Protestant 
population  of  Christendom  is  Episcopal,  and  deducting  from 
that  all  the  Lutherans,  and  Moravians,  and  Methodists,  and 
other  christians  belonging  to  churches  which  have  a  form  o 
episcopacy,  but  are  really  Presbyterian,  who  are  included  in 
Malte  Brun's  calculation  to  make  his  one-half  and  any  one  can 
see  how  small  the  proportion  must  be  that  will  be  left. 

"What  advantage  do  Episcopalians  hope  to  derive  in  an  argu- 
ment with  us,  from  swelling  the  numbers  of  those  who  support 
the  hierarchical  form  of  church  government,  by  counting  with 
themselves  the  hordes  of  the  Romish  and  Greek  communions  ? 
Or  what  advantage  do  they  hope  to  derive  for  the  same  object, 
from  counting  dishonestly  with  themselves  those  who  resemble 
them  in  the  mere  accident  of  a  name,  but  utterly  reject  their 
principle  ? 


320  THE  CHURCH, 


BARROW  ON  THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

My  reviewer  finds  fault  with  me  because  the  extracts  from 
this  author  in  my  sermon,  "  are  culled  from  two  pages  of  an 
octavo  volume."  I  do  not  see  how  the  extracts  are  less  perti- 
nent on  that  account.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  difference  is 
quite  imperceptible,  so  long  as  they  are  veritable  extracts  from 
BaiTow,  whether  they  are  culled,  or  taken  up  as  a  solid  whole ; 
whether  they  are  culled  from  two  pages  or  from  one;  or, 
whether  they  are  culled  from  two  pages  of  an  octavo  volume, 
or  from  two  pages  of  a  duodecimo.  If  these  are  great  matters 
with  him,  they  are  small  matters  with  me.  The  main  question, 
I  think,  relates  to  the  nature  of  Barrow's  testimony.  I  know 
that  the  main  drift  of  Barrow's  reasoning  is  against  the  succes- 
sion to  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  su^^remacy  of  the 
pope.  But  how  does  he  maintain  his  point?  Simply  by 
showing  that  St.  Peter  could  have  no  successor  to  his  primacy  ? 
or  by  showing  that  the  apostles  could  have  no  successors  to 
their  apostleship  ?  In  the  latter  way,  certainly.  "  The  apos- 
tolical office,"  he  says,  *' as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary;" 
(precisely  what  Presbyterians  affirm,)  "  and  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  its  nature  and  design,  not  successive  or  communicable  to 
others,  in  perpetual  descendance  from  them."  "  Now  such  an 
office  was  not  designed Jx)  continue  by  derivation;  for  it  con- 
taineth  in  it  diverse  things  which  apparently  were  not  com- 
municable, and  which  no  man,  without  gross  imposture  and 
hypocrisy,  could  challenge  to  himself." 

What  is  it  that  Barrow  says  was  "  personal  and  temporary," 
and  "  not  successive  or  communicable  to  others  ? "  My  reviewer 
says,  (page  220,)  that  he  affirms  this  of  "the  personal  endow- 
ments and  miraculous  qualifications  by  which  they  (the  apos- 
tles) were  fitted  for  the  extraordinary  circumstances  of  the 
infant  church."  The  reader  can  see  for  himself  what  the  fact 
is,  — "  The  apostolical  office^^  says  Barrow,  was  personal  and 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  391 

temporary, '  and  "  not  successive  or  communicable  to  others."  He 
speaks  not  of  the  mere  accidents  of  the  office,  but  of  the  office 
itself.     The  apostolical   office,  "as  such"  that  is,  in  its  own 
proper  and  peculiar  nature^  was  personal  and  temporary,  and 
not  successive  or  communicable  to  others.     My  reviewer  goes 
on  to  say,  expository  still  of  Barrow's  meaning,  "  It  is  only  the 
apo?-  olical  office  as  characterized  by  the  inspiration  and  mirac- 
ulous powers  of  its  first  incumbents,  which  he  asseils  can  have 
no  succession."     But  I  simply  appeal  to  Barrow  himself.     Wliat 
does  he  say  ?     That  the  apostolical  office,  as  characterized  by 
something  personal  to  its  first  incumbents,  is  not  successive  or 
communicable  ?     Or,  does  he  affirm  this  of  the  office  itself,  as 
such?     Is  it  some  mere  temporary  character  of  the  office  as  it 
was  first  held,  that  he  speaks  of,  or  the  very  office?     From 
such  interpreters  as  this  anonymous  reviewer,  I  can  say  devoutly 
in  the  language  of  the  prayer-book, — "  Good  Lord  deliver  us." 
Having  furnished  us  with  this  specimen  of  his  critical  acu- 
men, he  proceeds  to  make  other  quotations  from  Barrow,  to 
show  that  he  did  truly  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  apostolical 
succession,  as  it  is  held  by  the  high-church  Episcopal  party. 
In  other  words,  he  undertakes  to  make  Barrow  stultify  himself, 
by  teaching  elsewhere  a  doctrine  which,  in  the  passages  that 
have  been  noticed,  he  emphatically  condemns  —  to  make  him 
say,  in  the  face  of  his  own  unequivocal  denial^  that  "the  apos- 
tolical office,  as  such,"  has  been  succeeded  to  by  multitudes, 
and  that  it  is  "  communicable  to  others  in  perpetual  descend- 
ence."     Poor  Barrow !  well  might  he  exclaim,  were  he  alive, 
and  could  he  know  of  my  re^dewer's  labors,  Save  me  from  my 
friends/     If  his  good  character  will  not  save  him,  I  must  let 
him  go,  for,  as  to  taking  up  these  several  quotations  and  show- 
ing, as  I  might  do,,  that  in  not  one  of  them  does  Barrow  con- 
tradict his  own  assertion,  which  has  been  already  considered, 
I  shall  not  attempt  it.     The  apostolical  office,  as  such,  ceased 
with  the  apostles,  but  the  office  of  the  christian  ministry,  which 
they  held,  did  not  cease  with   them,  and  in  that  they  have 
15* 


322  THE  CHURCH, 

successors  undoubtedly,  which  is  the  real  doctrine  of  Barrow 
in  all  the  places  which  my  re\dewer  has  quoted  from  him.     I 
claim,  myself,  to  be  a  successor  of  the  apostles  in  this  holy 
office,  and  to  have  derived  my  succession  from  them,  hy  trans- 
mission, through  "the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery," when  I  was  ordained.     I  claim  to  be  a  true  scriptural 
bishop,  in  the  very  sense  of  the  word  bishop,  as  it  occurs  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  as  it  was  used  by  all  the  early  christian 
writers;  in  the  very  sense  of  Cyprian,  as  quoted  from  Barrow 
by  my  reviev/er,  on  page  221,  and  of  Chrysostom,  on  page 
222.     Barrow,  of  course,  would  not  allow,  that  in  denying  the 
false  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession,  which  had  been  the  pro- 
lific source  of  so  many  abominable  coiTuptions  in  the  Romish 
church,  he  gave  up  the  derivation  of  ministerial  authority  in  the 
Protestant  churches  from  the  apostles,  and  he  was  veiy  careful, 
therefore,  to  guard  this  point,  and  he  has  done  it  well.     He 
teaches  everywhere,  that  in  their  apostolical  office,  as  such,  the 
apostles  had  no  successors,  but  that  all  regularly  ordained  chris- 
tian ministers  are  their  successors  in  the  only  communicable 
office  which  they  held.     If  Barrow,  as  an  Episcopalian,  had 
some  ideas  of  the  superiority  of  the  episcopal  office,  and  of 
the  exclusive  appropriation  to  it,  by  general  consent,  of  certain 
ministerial  powers  and  prerogatives,  which  the  body  of  minis- 
ters should  forego  and  surrender,  for  the  sake  of  government ; 
and  that,  in  this  respect,  while  all  ministers  are  truly  successors 
of  the  apostles,  bishops  are  so  in  a  larger  sense; — that  is  not 
strange,  nor  do  I  reproach  him  for  it     He  was  a  great  and 
good  man,  who  has  done  eminent  service  to  the  church,  and 
will  doubtless  do  more,  if  he  is  not  too  much  maligned  by 
such  men  as  my  reviewer. 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  323 

INCONSISTENT  OPINIONS  OF  INDIVIDUAL 
BISHOPS  OF  NO  WEIGHT. 

Such  is  the  heading  of  the  concluding  article  in  Mr.  Schuy- 
ler's book,  furnished  by  his  anonymous  friend ;  the  design  of 
which  is  to  show  that  it  matters  not  what  the  opinions  of  the 
leading  reformers  in  England  were  at  the  time  Avhen  the  refor- 
mation in  that  country  was  an-ested,  and  the  English  church 
took  that  permanent  character  and  form  which  it  wears  at  the 
present  day.  Their  views,  the  writer  says,  do  not  affect  the 
real  question  in  debate,  which  is  to  be  decided  upon  its  own 
merits.  Now  I  would  be  disposed  to  grant  the  principle 
claimed  here,  in  all  ordinary  cases.  But  this  case  is  peculiar. 
The  English  church  is  held  up  before  us,  as  the  only  example  on 
earth  of  a  truly  reformed  church.  Other  reformed  churches, 
so  called,  are  no  churches,  but  have  broken  out  of  the  pale, 
have  unchurched  themselves,  by  casting  off"  some  things  which 
are  essential  to  a  true  church  existence ;  but  the  English  church 
came  just  far  enough,  and  not  a  step  too  far.  She  truly 
reformed,  and  not  c?e-formed,  stopping  at  the  precise  point  of 
absolute  perfection,  and  now  presents  the  only  instance  of  the 
true  church  of  the  Redeemer  in  its  purity  and  beauty.  I  grant 
that  the  great  question  in  regard  to  her  claims  is  to  be  settled 
finally  and  definitely,  by  comparing  her,  as  she  stands,  with  the 
unerring  word  of  God  in  the  scriptures.  But  is  there  no  ques- 
tion in  regard  to  the  history  of  her  reformation,  in  regard  to 
the  influences  under  which  it  was  conducted,  and  under  which, 
also,  it  was  arrested,  by  which  the  great  question  may  be  in 
some  measure  prejudged,  and  a  ^probability  one  way  or  the 
other  be  estabhshed,  that  shall  cheer  us  on  and  lighten  our  way 
in  the  main  definitive  investigation  ?  Or,  seeing  that  the  argu- 
ment upon  scripture  ground  is  likely  to  be  endless,  and  never 
to  bring  forth  a  conclusion  in  which  all  parties  may  harmonize, 
is  there  no  question  of  the  kind  that  has  been  referred  to,  whose 


324  THE  CHURCH, 

answer  may  serve  as  a  make-weight  to  decide,  if  possible,  the 
quivering  scales  ?  or  which,  at  least,  may  help  some  minds  in 
resoMng  their  troublesome  and  most  adhesive  doubts  ?  It  is 
certainly  a  most  remarkable  thing,  that  the  English  church  in 
her  work  of  reformation,  stopping  so  soon  upon  the  road, 
should  have  been  so  fortunate  as  to  hold  up  at  the  very  point 
of  perfection.  Other  reforming  churches  found  a  very  natural 
stopping  place  at  the  end  of  the  way,  when  they  had  divested 
themselves  of  the  last  rags  of  the  papacy ;  but  the  church  of 
England  held  up  in  medias  res,  before  the  end  was  even  in 
sight,  and  yet,  it  was  at  the  exact  moment  when  she  had  per- 
fected herself!  This  is  truly  wonderful,  and  the  question  natu- 
rally arises, —  Was  there  any  thing  in  her  peculiar  circumstances, 
or  in  the  pecuhar  influences  under  w^hich  she  acted,  that  may 
serve  in  any  measure  to  account  for  this  most  fortunate  issue  of 
her  reforming  movements  ?  Had  she  better  and  more  enlight- 
ened men  at  the  head  of  her  affairs,  than  the  church  in  Scotland, 
or  the  churches  on  the  continent  ?  Was  she  less  embarrassed 
than  these  other  churches,  by  secular  interference  ?  Had  she  a 
fuller  opportunity  for  acting  out  the  free,  enlightened,  and  con- 
sentaneous christian  sense  of  her  wisest  and  best  men  ?  And, 
as  a  fact,  was  it  in  a  peculiar  manner,  in  the  unhindered,  unin- 
fluenced acting  out  of  the  free,  enlightened,  and  consentaneous 
christian  sense  of  her  wisest  and  best  men,  that  she  finally 
arrested  her  reform  where  she  did,  and  took  on  the  shape  and 
character  in  which  she  now  appeai-s  ? 

Now,  if  all  these  questions,  and  others  like  them,  are  to  be 
answered  clearly  in  the  aflirmative,  then  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  scriptural  argument  for  the  English  church  begins  on  high 
vantage  ground,  and  has  every  thing  in  the  actual  circumstances 
of  the  case,  to  prepare  its  way,  and  give  it  force.  Or,  if  the 
argument  has  been  taken,  and  the  conclusion  hangs  in  suspense, 
then,  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  must  serve  strongly, 
if  not  effectually,  to  determine  a  preponderance  on  the  Angli 
can  side.     If,  however,  these  and  similar  questions  are  to  be 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  325 

answered  clearly  in  the  negative ;  if  the  English  church,  at  the 
time  referred  to,  had  no  better  or  more  enlightened  men  than 
the  church  in  Scotland,  or  the  churches  on  the  continent ;  if 
she  was  far  less  free  than  these  other  churches  from  the  embar- 
rassments of  secular  interference,  being  completely  in  the  hands 
of  a  wicked  and  worldly  government,  which  used  its  power  to 
the  utmost ;  if  the  opportunity  afforded  her  of  following  the 
free,  enlightened,  and  consentaneous  christian  sense  of  her 
wisest  and  best  men,  was  really  far  inferior  to  that  enjoyed  by 
other  churches ;  and  if,  as  a  fact,  in  the  final  adjustment  of  her 
reform,  and  consolidation  of  her  permanent  state,  the  free, 
enlightened,  and  consentaneous  sense  of  her  wisest  and  best 
men  was  not  followed,  then,  I  say,  the  scriptural  argaiment  on 
her  behalf  must  be  overwhelmingly  conclusive,  or  it  vdW  be 
a  hopeless  labor  forever  to  those  who  undertake  it ;  and  to  those 
minds  that  are  balanced  upon  that  argument,  having  previous- 
ly attended  to  it,  the  circumstances  of  the  case  must,  I  think, 
afford  immediate  relief,  and  decide  a  most  cordial  rejection  of 
her  claims.  In  Scotland,  the  cause  of  reform  met  with  abun- 
dant opposition  from  the  government,  but  it  was  able  to  bear 
down  that  opposition,  and  succeeded  finally  in  estabhshing  itself, 
in  spite  of  all  its  enemies,  secret  or  open,  according  to  the  most 
enhghtened  views,  and  fondest  wishes  of  its  supporters  and 
friends.  Such  was  the  fact  also  upon  the  continent.  Luther, 
and  his  coadjutors,  in  Germany, —  Calvin,  and  Zuinglius,  with 
their  coadjutors  in  Switzerland,  under  God,  were  enabled  to  carry 
out  their  views,  and  to  constitute  the  churches  with  which  they 
were  severally  connected,  in  the  fullest  accordance  with  what  they 
approved  as  scriptural  and  expedient.  Very  different  was  it  in 
England.  The  church  in  that  country  was  very  part  and  parcel 
of  the  civil  government.  So  thoroughly  was  it  interlaced  with 
the  state,  that  any  material  change  of  its  outward  structure, 
ine^^tably  involved  changes  to  the  same  extent  in  the  state 
itself.  To  demolish  and  reconstruct  the  ecclesiastical,  w^as  to 
demolish  and  reconstruct  the  civil.     Revolution  in  one,  beyond 


326  THE  CHURCH, 

what  was  simply  speculative  and  spiritual,  was  revolution  in  the 
other.  While  changes  of  opinion,  therefore,  on  merely  doctri- 
nal points,  were  easily  tolerated ;  while  the  government  did  not 
care  a  pin  whether  the  church  were  Calvinistic  or  Arminian  in 
its  dbctrine,  but  was  willing  it  should  be  either,  or  neither,  or 
both,  as  the  thirty-nine  articles  bear  witness,  changes  of  eccle- 
siastical structure  and  administration  were  from  the  first  stead- 
fastly resisted,  and  none  were  admitted,  even  to  the  last,  except 
such  as  might  be,  without  disturbing  the  estabhshed  order  of 
things.  What  the  wisest  and  best  men  in  England  desired, 
what  they  longed  after,  and  sought  to  obtain,  I  have  shown 
abundantly  in  other  places.  But  what  could  they  do  against 
the  colossal  power  of  the  throne,  backed  by  nearly  all  the  no- 
bility of  the  realm,  almost  every  family  of  which  had  younger 
members  dependent  for  their  influence  and  incomes,  on  the 
preferments  of  a  hierarchical  and  state-paid  church?  They 
could  do  nothing  but  be  content  with  the  largest  reform  which 
that  government  would  give  them.  Fortunately,  things  were 
in  a  condition  which  gave  the  reformers  power.  The  people, 
to  a  great  extent,  were  with  them,  and  their  wishes  could  not 
be  wholly  disregarded.  Besides,  England  had  given  deep 
offense  to  the  reigning  powers  of  Europe,  and  her  very  exist- 
ence depended  on  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  concord  at 
home.  Hence,  as  Macaulay  says, — "  As  the  Protestants  needed 
the  protection  of  the  government,  so  the  government  needed 
the  support  of  the  Protestants.  Much  was,  therefore,  given  up 
on  both  sides ;  a  union  was  effected,  and  the  result  of  that  union 
was  the  church  of  England." 

Will  it  be  pretended  that  such  facts  as  these  are  to  have  no 
weight,  in  ascertaining  what  degree  of  respect  is  due  to  the 
high  claims  which  are  set  up  for  the  English  church  ?  I  aflSrm 
that  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  they  should  not  have  weight 
with  every  human  mind  that  perceives  them.  Nevertheless, 
certainly,  they  ought  not  to  decide  the  question.  God  may 
have  wrought  another  miracle  for  his  church  in  England,  as  we 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  ^t 

know  that  in  former  times  he  has  wrought  many,  and  given 
her  a  true  and  perfect  reformation,  in  circumstances,  that  on 
natural  principles,  would  seem  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  it. 
Who  can  tell  ?  Therefore,  "to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 
The  scriptures  alone  are  competent  to  afford  a  final  and  infal- 
lible decision.  Let  it  be  proved  from  the  scriptures,  that  the 
English  church  is  what  our  Episcopal  friends  claim  that  she  is, 
that  her  reformation  did  go  just  far  enough,  and  no  farther, 
and  that  the  result  of  it  was  to  bring  forth  the  church  of 
Christ  in  its  purity,  as  he  constituted  it  at  the  first,  and  intended 
it  should  be; — prove  this,  I  say,  from  the  scriptures,  and  I  will 
bow  to  the  authority.  I  will  own  the  miracle,  by  which  this 
glorious  result  was  secured,  and  praise  God  for  his  grace. 

It  is  true  that  the  Enghsh  reformers  accepted  of  their  church 
as  it  was  finally  estabhshed,  and  served  it,  and  served  in  it, 
praying  for  its  peace  and  prosperity,  and  submitting  themselves 
to  its  ordinances.  "What  then?  Were  they  dishonest  men 
because  they  did  this,  while  in  their  hearts  they  fully  beheved 
that  the  reformation  had  been  incomplete  ?  Is  it  so,  then,  that 
no  honest  man  can  be  a  member  of  a  church  which  he  does 
not  believe  to  be  in  all  respects  perfect  ?  In  that  case,  if  the 
principle  were  acted  upon,  I  fear  we  should  soon  have  few 
honest  men  in  any  of  our  churches.  We  fully  believe  that  the 
system  of  prelacy  has  no  ground  in  the  scriptures ;  that  there 
is  neither  precept  nor  precedent  there  to  recommend  it ;  and  we 
believe,  that  as  a  form  of  church  government,  it  is  unwise  and 
inexpedient ;  yet  we  do  not  regard  it  as  positively  sinful^  so  as 
to  vitiate  whatever  else  in  a  church  is  good,  and  make  the 
church  which  adopts  it,  no  church.  So,  doubtless,  felt  the  pious 
reformers  of  England.  Unable  to  obtain  all  that  they  desired, 
they  were  wisely  thankful  for  all  they  could  obtain,  and  tried 
to  make  the  best  of  it,  rejoicing  in  what  was  good,  and  submit- 
ting, in  the  hope  of  better  days  to  come,  to  the  evil  which  they 
could  not  cure.  I  believe  that  /  am  an  honest  man,  and  yet  I 
am  free  to  confess,  that  with  all  my  disrehsh  for  episcopacy, 


32S  THE  CHURCH, 

and  my  deep  conviction  that  it  is  both  without  scripture  war- 
rant, and  very  far  from  being  the  best  form  of  government  the 
church  can  have,  that  had  I  been  in  the  place  of  one  of  those 
reformers,  I  should  have  had  a  good  conscience  in  doing  as 
they  did. 


CONCLUSION. 


I  have  finished  the  work  which  I  proposed  to  do.  1  wish  I 
could  think  that  I  have  done  full  justice  to  my  theme.  I  have 
done  the  best  that  I  could,  in  the  circumstances,  and  now  com- 
mit the  result  to  God's  holy  providence,  earnestly  praying  that 
if  no  good  influence  shall  be  exerted  by  what  I  have  written, 
there  may,  at  least,  be  exerted  no  influence  that  is  evil.  My 
main  purpose  has  been,  to  furnish  Presbyterians  with  a  simple 
and  easy  method  of  meeting  the  arguments  that  are  commonly 
used  against  them,  and  of  defending  their  own  system ;  and  at 
the  same  time  to  help  those  minds  that  are  embarrassed  with 
doubts,  respecting  the  comparative  claims  of  prelacy  and  parity. 
I  have  not  now,  nor  have  I  ever  had,  the  least  idea  of  making 
converts  from  the  ranks  of  confirmed  Episcopalians  — I  hardly 
expect  from  that  class  to  obtain  readers.  I  doubt  if  many  of 
them  are  at  all  accustomed  to  read  works  on  this  subject  which 
do  not  inculcate  their  own  peculiar  views.  As  little  as  I  expect 
that  my  book  will  make  converts  from  the  ranks  of  confirmed 
Episcopalians,  do  I  expect  that  it  will  exert  any  perceptible 
influence  in  arresting  the  onward  progress  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  That  church  has  attractions  for  many  that  will  always 
serve,  especially  in  our  large  towns  and  cities,  to  replenish  and 
augment  its  numbers.  Many,  who  can  not  reconcile  themselves 
to  the  senseless  mummeries  of  the  Catholic  service  will  be 
drawn  into  the  Episcopal  church  by  their  natural  fondness  for 
forms,  and  imposing  ceremonial  display.     Episcopalians,  more 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  329 

ilian  any  other  Protestant  christians,  are  fond  of  elegant  church- 
cdifices  and  furniture,  of  pictorial  adornments,  and  highly 
artistic  choral  performances,  and  whatever  else  they  lack,  these,  if 
:.G  all  within  their  reach,  they  will  not  be  without.  Many  will  be 
drawn  to  them  by  the  natural  influence  of  these  things.  Their 
church  is  an  easy  one  for  easy  christians.  They  have  little  or 
no  discipline  for  unruly  members,  so  that  a  reputable  standing 
may  be  maintained  among  them  by  persons,  who,  in  almost 
any  other  communion,  could  not  avoid  the  extremest  censures 
and  discipline.  This  makes  it  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  discon- 
tented and  restive  of  other  churches,  and  determines,  at  once, 
the  election  of  it  by  those  who  wish  to  maintain  some  sort  of 
rehgious  character,  without  the  ordinary  restraints  of  a  rehgious 
profession.  All  these  circumstances  make  it  a  fashionable 
church.  People  of  fashion  go  to  it,  because  it  does  not  inter- 
fere with  their  fashionable  pleasures,  and  because  it  has  the 
means  of  gi-atifying  a  fashionable  taste.  As  a  fashionable 
church,  it  not  only  attracts  fashionable  persons,  but  great  num- 
bers besides,  who  are  aspuing  to  the  same  distinction.  Then, 
in  addition  to  all  these  things,  the  Episcopal  church  affords  the 
utmost  latitude  of  theological  views  to  its  ministry  and  members. 
It  puts  nobody  in  a  strait  jacket.  Its  articles  cover  the  whole 
ground  from  the  north  pole  of  Calvinism,  to  the  extreme  south 
of  Arminianism ;  and  its  practice  consecrates  any  thing,  that 
any  one  chooses  to  think,  in  any  direction,  so  long  as  on  the  one 
hand  he  does  not  embrace  Popery,  or  on  the  other  utterly  reject 
the  authority  of  the  bishop.  No  man  inclined  to  go  into  the 
Episcopal  church  need  give  himself  any  uneasiness  about  his 
doctrinal  sentiments;  and  no  man  need  hesitate  about  going 
there,  from  the  least  apprehension,  especially,  if  he  lives  in  a 
large  city,  that  he  shall  not  be  able  to  find  a  preacher  that  will 
suit  his  taste.  Does  he  want  a  man  strictly  orthodox,  and 
rigidly  Calvinistic  ?  Mr.  A.  will  please  him  perfectly.  Does  he 
prefer  a  low  and  flaccid  Arminianism  ?  Mr.  B.,  just  around  the 
corner  in  the  next  street,  will  meet  the  requirement  to  a  tittle* 


330  THE  CHURCH, 

Must  his  preaclier  be  a  staimcli  revivalist  ?  Mr.  0.  is  second  to 
none  of  that  class.  Must  he  be  a  bitter  opposer  of  revivals, 
even  an  utter  disbeliever  in  them  and  mocker  of  them,  who  ^vill 
tolerate  nothing  among  his  people  but  the  dull  monotony  of  a 
mere  prayer  book  religion,  and  eschew  excitements  as  he  would 
schism  and  death  ?  Mr.  D.  then,  is  his  man.  The  picture  could 
not  have  been  more  faithful,  had  he  sat  for  it.  Will  he  bear  to 
hear  nothing  in  the  pulpit  but  pretty  moral  essays,  very  short  ? 
At  the  reverend  Dr.  E's  church  he  may  count  with  a  perfect 
certainty  on  hearing  nothing  else  from  year's  end  to  year's  end. 
Does  he  desire  to  learn  the  lessons  of  extreme  high-churchism  ? 
Young  Mr.  F.  will  suit  him  then,  for,  if  all  his  sermons  had 
been  imported  direct  from  Oxford,  with  Dr.  Pusey's  own  im- 
primatur upon  them,  they  could  not  be  more  highly  impreg- 
nated than  they  are  with  the  genuine  Oxford  element.  Is  his 
mind,  perchance,  deeply  imbued  with  a  love  for  the  simple 
gospel,  and  wherever  he  goes,  will  he  insist  upon  being  fed  with 
the  pure  evangelic  manna?  Happily,  the  Episcopal  church 
can  provide  for  him,  for  there  are  those  in  her  ministry,  and  I 
praise  God  for  it,  who  have  no  superiors  as  faithful  messengers 
of  the  grace  of  life.  Thus  all  sorts  can  be  suited.  In  this  re- 
spect it  is  a  broad  net  that  the  Episcopal  church  casts  forth 
upon  the  waters.  Episcopacy  gains  farther  a  large  advantage, 
with  a  certain  order  of  minds,  from  the  very  extravagance  of  its 
pretensions,  and  the  positiveness  with  which  those  pretensions 
are  maintained.  There  is  something  in  our  very  nature,  that 
predisposes  us,  in  determining  the  relative  merits  of  conflicting 
claims,  to  accord  superiority  to  that  which  is  most  audacious, 
and  which  presses  itself  upon  us  with  the  most  unswerving 
pertinacity.  We  are  very  apt  to  think  that  where  there  is  most 
smoke,  there  is  most  fire,  and  that  the  biggest  thunder  comes 
from  the  biggest  cloud.  Episcopalians  claim,  that  of  all  Protes- 
tants, they  alone  have  the  church,  the  christian  ministry,  and 
the  sacraments.  They  are  the  true  "  Israelites,  to  whom  per- 
taineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  331 

giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises; 
whose  are  the  fathers,"  and  whatever  else  may  be  regarded  as 
distinguishing  the  elect  people  of  the  Most  High.  Others  are 
only  dissenters,  schismatics,  aliens, —  and  their  churches  mere 
human  societies,  dissevered  from  Christ  the  head,  and  having 
no  share  in  the  streams  of  heavenly  grace.  This  claim  they 
put  forth  with  the  utmost  seriousness,  and  urge  with  as  much 
pertinacity  as  if  they  verily  believed  that  the  honor  of  God, 
and  the  salvation  of  souls  depended  on  it.  Who  can  wonder, 
that  to  minds  of  a  certain  class  it  is  deeply  affecting  ?  It  would 
be  strange,  if  it  were  not.  The  claim  is  imposing.  It  is  grand. 
With  many  pei-sons  it  is  overwhelming,  and  they  are  taken 
by  it  as  by  storm,  without  even  asking  for  the  first  evidence. 
They  think  there  must  be  something  in  it,  or  good  men  would 
not  be  found  so  earnestly  advocating  and  urging  it. 

The  Episcopal  church  has  always  received,  and  probably 
always  will  receive,  from  other  denominations,  numerous  acces- 
sions to  its  ministry.  I  have  not  the  means  of  ascertaining 
with  any  certainty  what  proportion  of  its  living  clergy  is  com- 
posed of  this  class  of  persons,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  very  large. 
I  think  I  can  say  with  truth,  that  quite  one-third  of  those  with 
whom  I  am  personally  acquainted,  were  educated  under  an- 
other system.  Episcopalians  boast  of  this,  and  refer  to  it  as 
evidence  of  the  peculiar  force  with  which  their  system  com- 
mends itself  to  educated  minds.  Some  facts,  therefore,  are 
important  to  be  stated  here,  bearing  upon  this  point.  It  is  to 
be  considered,  in  the  first  place,  that  young  men,  aiming  at  the 
christian  ministry,  are  ordinarily  not  in  possession  of  very 
highly  educated  minds,  at  the  period  when  they  elect  the 
church  in  whose  fellowship  they  will  perform  their  labors.  At 
the  time  when  this  question  is  commonly  decided  by  them,  they 
are  much  more  likely  to  be  influenced  by  certain  considerations, 
which  I  propose  to  mention,  than  by  any  clear  and  well-digested 
views  of  christian  doctrine  and  the  facts  of  sacred  and  profane 
history.     I  believe  it  will  not  be  denied  that  young  men,  of  the 


332  THE  CHURCH 

class  that  we  call  educated,  are  far  nior«  apt  to  be  very  am- 
bitious than  very  learned ;  and  the  prelatic  system  of  church 
order  has,  what  the  presbyterial  system  has  not,  an  object  to  set 
before  them.  In  our  diurches  there  is  no  high  place  of  dignity 
and  power  to  be  sought  a^  won.  There  are  with  us  no  dis- 
tinctions but  those  of  superior  merit,  and  pre-eminent  usefulness, 
—  distinctions,  to  which  the  kind  of  ambition  that  I  now  speak 
of,  is  by  no  means  likely  to  aspire.  Does  any  one  suppose,  that 
of  all  the  young  men  that  have  entered  the  ministry  of  the 
Episcopal  church  from  the  ranks  of  parity,  not  one  has  been 
attracted  there,  by  the  prospect  of  one  day  becoming  a  bishop  ? 
It  may  seem  a  small  thing  to  mention  the  gown,  and  bands, 
and  muslin  robes  which  compose  the  Sunday  uniform  of  Epis- 
copal clergymen,  but  as  drops  make  up  the  ocean,  so  small 
things  make  up  the  sum  of  life ;  and  I  must  not  fail  to  ask  my 
readers,  if  it  is  not, at  least,  supposable,  that  some  young  men 
are  drawn  into  the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  church,  by  the 
idea  that  they  shall  looh  well  in  all  that  finery  ?  Young  men 
are  very  silly  sometimes,  and  in  respect  to  nothing,  more  than 
the  article  of  dress;  and  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  young  men 
aiming  at  the  christian  ministry  have  never  shown  themselves 
to  be  exceptions  to  this  remark.  A  good  Episcopal  lady,  many 
years  ago,  lamented  to  me  that  I  was  not  in  her  church,  be- 
cause, being  tall,  and  very  erect,  I  would  look  so  well  in  the 
robes.  There  is  a  consideration  yet  to  be  named,  which  has 
exerted,  I  have  no  doubt,  more  influence  than  all  the  rest.  The 
duties  of  the  ministry  in  the  Episcopal  church  are  compara- 
tively light,  and  demand  but  little  exertion,  and  Httle  talent. 
It  is  the  fasliion,  in  that  church,  to  have  far  fewer  services,  than 
are  common  with  us.  For  the  devotional  parts  of  those  ser- 
vices, provision  is  already  made  in  the  prayer  book.  The 
sermons  are  expected  always  to  be  short,  about  half  the  ordinary 
length  of  ours;  and  as  the  preaching  is  esteemed  secondary  to 
the  reading  of  the  prayers,  the  gi*eat  demand  is  for  good  read- 
ing, rather  than  for  good  preaching.     It  is  notorious  that  men 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP.  333 

may  sustain  themselves  reputably  in  the  Episcopal  church,  with 
a  grade  of  ability  in  their  discourses,  which  among  us  would 
not  be  tolerated.  They  may  become  doctors  of  divinity,  on 
an  amount  of  capital  that  with  us  would  hardly  gain  them 
parishes.  This  is  a  matter  well  understood,  and  I  need  not 
enlarge  upon  it.  Who  doubts,  that  many  diffident  young  men, 
fearful  of  failure  where  higher  demands  would  be  made  upon 
them,  besides  many  indolent  ones,  shrinking  from  much  labor, 
and  like  many  more,  of  feeble  capacity,  ambitious  of  an  honor- 
able standing  at  small  cost,  and  with  small  means  —  who 
doubts,  I  say,  that  many  such,  diffident,  indolent,  and  weak,  are 
drawn  into  the  Episcopal  church  by  a  consideration  of  what  I 
have  now  stated  ?  There  is  one  Episcopal  minister,  holding  no 
mean  place,  in  no  mean  city  of  our  land,  who,  in  a  conversation 
with  me,  before  entering  that  church  from  ours,  frankly  owned 
that  he  was  going  there,  mainly  for  the  reason  that  he  feared 
he  never  could  maintain  a  respectable  standing  in  our  church. 
He  is  now  a  hio-h-churchman  of  the  hio-hest  kind.  Who 
doubts,  that  if  the  truth  were  known,  he  would  appear  to  be  one 
of  a  very  large  company?  Illustrative  of  another  point  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  may  be  mentioned  the  case  of  a  young 
man  of  rather  superior  abilities,  who  entered  the  Episcopal 
ministry  from  our  ranks  some  five  years  ago,  assigning,  as  his 
sole  reason,  to  myself  and  others,  the  latitude  of  opinion  on 
doctrinal  subjects,  which  was  allowed  in  that  church.  It  is  a 
fact  which  may  here  be'  mentioned,  that  young  men  of  un- 
doubted piety  Imxe  gone  from  us  into  the  ministry  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  from  a  simple  conviction,  that  in  consequence 
of  the  lack  of  really  ftiithful  and  evangelical  preachers  in  that 
communion,  they  might  be  more  extensively  useful  there,  than 
they  could  be  in  any  other  connection.  I  have  been  credibly 
informed  that  this  was  the  case  with  a  certain  eminent  divine 
who,  to  the  profound  giief  of  all  that  knew  his  worth,  died 
recently  in  one  of  our  principal  cities. 


334  THE  CHURCH, 

Tims  we  see,  that  there  are  ample  ways  of  accounting  for  the 
success  of  episcopacy  among  us  hitherto,  without  at  all  suppos- 
ing that  a  rational  conviction  has  prevailed,  to  any  extent,  of 
its  peculiar  claims;  and  we  see,  also,  that  while  human  nature 
remains  such  as  it  is,  there  is  little  prospect  that  its  success  will 
be  rendered,  by  any  cause,  less  than  it  has  been.  Certainly  I 
should  never  dream  of  essentially  impairing  that  success  by  any 
efforts  of  mine.  The  Episcopal  church  will  flourish  still,  and 
large  numbers  will  flock  to  it.  I  do  not  apprehend,  however, 
that  it  will  ever  become  relatively  a  large  church  in  this  coun- 
try. It  will  hold  its  own,  and  make  its  natural  increase  of 
those  whose  idosyncrasies  peculiarly  incline  them  in  that  direc- 
tion. Its  form  of  government^  on  account  of  the  monarchical 
feature  of  it,  can  never  be  extensively  j^opular  with  Americans^ 
and  the  generally  prosaic  character  of  our  people,  aftbrds  a 
suflicient  guarantee  that  its  forms  of  worship  will  never  be 
extensively  admired.  There  is  also  a  strong  working  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  our  land,  of  the  old  Puritanic 
element,  against  which  prelacy  will  never  be  able,  on  any  large 
scale,  to  make  headway.  In  addition  to  all  this,  Americans 
are  eminently  a  reading  and  a  thinking  people,  who  will  have 
good  reasons  before  they  believe,  and  episcopacy  has  no  such 
reasons  to  give. 

Should  our  land  be  visited  with  large  and  extensive  outpour- 
ings of  the  Holy  Spirit,  there  is  no  doubt  the  Episcopal  church 
would  suffer  by  it.  As  compared  with  her,  the  strength  of 
other  Protestant  churches,  destitute  as  they  are  of  whatever 
appeals  to  the  outward  senses  and  aims  to  affect  the  imagina- 
tion, lies  in  the  power  of  truth  and  in  their  spirituality.  Revi- 
vals of  religion,  therefore,  must  strengthen  them  where  their 
true  strength  hes,  and  weaken  her  in  the  same  vital  point. 
The  truth  of  this  observation  is  attested  by  the  whole  history 
of  revivals.  Let  our  non-prelatical  churches  r<emember  this, 
and  let  them  pray  and  labor,  above  all,  to  secure  in  their  midst 
the  presence  of  their  Saviour  God.      Then  shall  they  '•'have  a 


ITS  MINISTRY  AND  WORSHIP  335 

strong  city;    and  salvation  ^oill  God  appoint  for  walk  and 
bulwarks^ 

In  taking  leave  of  Mr.  Schuyler,  I  desire  to  say,  that  con- 
formably with  my  promise  at  the  outset,  I  have  had  no  purpose 
in  any  thmg  that  I  have  said,  to  wound  his  feelings.  I  have 
wntten  honestly  and  earnestly,  and  sometimes,  no  doubt,  have 
expressed  myself  with  a  degree  of  sharpness  which  it  would 
have  been  better  for  the  success  of  my  own  argument,  if  I  had 
restramed;  but  I  can  say,  with  all  truth,  that  there  has  been  no 
moment  when,  in  my  heart  toward  him  pei^nally,  there  was 
any  other  feehng  than  that  of  kindness.  Precisely  so  I  feel 
toward  h,m  now,  and  with  the  utmost  cordiality,  offer  him  my 


THE     END. 


INDEX. 


Prefatory. —A  word  of  explanation. 0 

An  unj  ust  accusation 6 

Something  amusing 8 

Tiie  Church,  its  ministry  and  worship li 

Mr.  Schuyleu's  Position 12 

The  Invisible  Church » . .     15 

The  Main  Questions  considered SO 

The  Church 2() 

The  Ministry  of  the  Church 29 

First  scriptural  argument  for  episcopacy;   three  orders  in  the  Aaronic 

priesthood 35 

Second  scriptural  argument  for  episcopacy;  the  consecration  of  Christ, 

aiid  hifi  ordination  of  the  twelve  and  the  seventy 40 

Tiiird  scriptural  argument  for  episcopacy;  a  second  order  constituted 

by  the  appointment  of  deacons 50 

Fourth  scriptural   argument  for  episcopacy;   tlie  three-fold  ministry 

completed  hy  the  discovery  of  another  order  called  presbyters 57 

Was  the  apostle.'^hip  designed  to  l»e  a  permanent  and  successive  oflice. . .     68 
Episcopal  arginnents  fur  ihe   p-enniiucncc  and  successiveness  of  the 

apostolic  otfice 99 

The  case  of  Matthias 100 

The  term  "  apostle  "  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  others  besides 

the  twelve 114 

Were  Bai-nabas,  Silas,  Timothy,  Titus,  Androuicus,  Junia,  and  Epaph- 

roditus  apostles'? 120 

Was  -Timothy  prelatic  bishop  of  Ephesus  7 125 

Was  Titus  prelatic  bishop  of  Crete  1 143 

Were  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  prelatic  bishops  1 153 

Is  there  authority  for  presbyierial  ordination  7 175 

Testimony  of  the  father.s  in  favor  of  prcsbyterial  ordination 192 

The  apostolical  succes.sion 221 

The  Worship  of  thk  Church 228 

Mr.  Schuyler's  Appendix 265 

Republicanism  of  the  American  Episcojjal  church 265 

The  Ignaiian  epistles 269 

'  John  Calviii'd  views  of  episcopacy 280 

Sentiments  of  English  reformers  respecting  the  government  and  worship 

of  the  church 292 

Apostolical  succession  of  the  American  Ejdscupa!  church 299 

Historical  Notices 311 

Nurabpr  of  Episcopalians  as  compared  with  the  various  other  sects 317 

Barrow  on  the  apostolical  succession 320 

Inconsistent  opinions  of  individual  bisliops  of  no  weight 323 

Conclusion 3-28 


4# 


